CDJ Law Journals

(Prayer: These criminal appeals have been preferred under section 415 of Bharathya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to set aside the judgment dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in SC NO.195/2016 and thus render justice.)

Common Judgment

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 27.10.2025 in S.C.No.195 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, A1 has filed Crl.A.No.1798 of 2025, A3 and A4 have filed Crl.A.Nos.1753 of 2025 and A-6 has filed Crl.A.No.233 of 2026. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :

Accused	Conviction	Sentence
A1, A3, A4, A5, A6	Section 147 IPC	To undergo six months simple imprisonment
A1	Section 148	To undergo one year simple imprisonment
A1	Section 302	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment
A1, A3, A4, A5	Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (A1) Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (2 counts for A3, A4, A5, A6)	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment for A1 and for A3, A4, A5, A6 -each count
A3, A4, A5, A6	Section 341 IPC	To undergo one month simple imprisonment
The accused to run the sentences concurrently

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

                     2.1.The deceased-1 Mohideen Basha is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. Deceased-2 Habib Mohamed is the brother of P.W.10. Deceased-1 is running a beef stall. P.W.4 was working in the said beef stall. On 31.10.2015, when P.W.4 was in the shop, A-1 came to the shop owned by deceased-1 and took 4 kgs. of beef liver and bones from the shop. The same when questioned by P.W.4, A-1 informed him that it is none of his business and so saying, he went out of the shop. Later, deceased-1 was informed that A-1 had taken beef from the shop. Therefore, deceased-1, Sikkandar (P.W.3) and P.W.4 went to the shop of A-1 and questioned him as to why he took away beef from his shop. A-1 shouted at deceased-1 stating how dare you come and question me and so saying, he proclaimed that he would come to his place and would eliminate him, for which deceased-1 said, if you have guts, you come to my area and so saying, deceased-1 left the place. The above incident was explained by deceased-1 to P.W.1 when P.W.1 was in his mother-in-laws residence at 07.00 p.m. At that time, P.W.2, one Sheriff, deceased-2, one Abbas Mandri were there in the house. While Deceased-1 was informing them about the said incident which happened that morning, A-3 called deceased-1 over mobile phone around 07.30 p.m and asked him to come near Aroma Bakery situated in Oppanakara Street to solve the issues between them. Therefore, P.W.1, P.W.2, Sheriff, Abbas Mandri and deceased-1 had discussion for about 1 hour and 15 minutes and went to the place of occurrence around 09.30 p.m. At that time, when deceased-1 questioned A-1 as to why he called him, A-1 informed him that he had come to his place to finish him off. At that time, A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-1 stabbed him with knife on his stomach. When deceased-2 came there, A-1 also shouted that he should also be caught. So, A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 stabbed him on the right side stomach. The above knives are M.Os.1 and 2. The above occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1,2,3 and 7 and 14.

                     2.2.P.W.2 is also relative to deceased-1. P.W.2 took the deceased-1 in an auto to the CMC hospital and P.W.10, the brother of deceased-2, who came to the spot at that time took deceased-2 in a two wheeler to the K.G.Hospital. After the deceased were sent to the hospital, P.W.1 came to his house to inform the incident and thereafter, he went to the government hospital and he was informed that Mohideen Basha died. Thereafter, he came to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint. P.W.18, Sub Inspector of Police who received the complaint from P.W.1 at 01.30 a.m., registered the case in Crime No.436 of 2015 under sections 302 and 307 IPC under Ex.P.29, First Information Report and forwarded a copy to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

                     2.3.P.W.22, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence. He prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.5 Ganeshkumar and one Asif. Ex.P.2 is the observation mahazar and Ex.P.34 is the rough sketch. Thereafter, he went to the K.G.Hospital and was informed that deceased-2 died and hence his dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and therefore, he proceeded to the Coimbatore Government medical college hospital. He altered the crime into section 302 IPC (2 counts). Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased-1 and prepared inquest report Ex.P.35 and later sent the dead body with a requisition to conduct postmortem. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased-2 and prepared inquest report Ex.P.37 and thereafter, sent his dead body for postmortem with requisition Ex.P.38.

                     2.4.In the meanwhile, P.W.15 medical officer attached to the Coimbatore Medical college hospital when he was on duty on 31.10.2015 at about 10.20 p.m., deceased-1 was brought by his relative for treatment and on examination, he found 10x4 cm stab injury on his right side chest and 3 x 2 cm laceration injury on his left leg second toe and he found him dead. He has issued Ex.P.17 accident register and has sent an intimation to the police which was marked as Ex.P.18.

                     2.5.P.W.19, medical officer attached to KG Hospital while he was on duty, has examined deceased-2 who was brought to the hospital for treatment. According to him, he was brought by one Sugaib Mohamed and that deceased-2 died during treatment due to heart attack, severe hypovolemic shock. According to P.W.20, medical officer attached to KG hospital, Coimbatore while he was in the hospital, deceased-2 was brought by his friends at about 10.00 p.m and he was informed that the deceased-2 suffered injury around 09.30 p.m. He has issued Ex.P.30 accident register and has given intimation to the police.

                     2.6.P.W.17, the medical officer attached to the Coimbatore Medical college hospital has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased-1 and found the following injuries:

                     ‘Transversely oblique stab wound 8x2 cm x cavity deep noted over right lower chest at the level of 7th and 8th ribs in its mid clavicular line, the upper medial end is 10 cm below to the right nipple. On dissection the wound passes inwards, upwards, towards, medially, cutting the underlying muscle, vessel, nerves, and 7th and 8th ribs and enter into the peritoneum and piecing the diaphragm, pericardium and enter into the right ventricle cavity. Peritoneum cavity contains about 1000 ml of fluid blood with clots. Both sides pleural cavities contain about 750 ml of fluid blood. -Reddish deep abrasion noted over dorsum of left great toe and 2nd toe.’

                     P.W.17 has issued Ex.P.23 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased-1 would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury in the chest and its corresponding internal injuries and the death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. and after receiving the viscera report, he has opined that viscera does not contain any poison. Then, he issued Ex.P.25 final opinion. Further, he has also received the serology report Ex.P.21.

                     2.7.Thereafter, he has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased-2 and found the following injuries:

                     ‘”Tick” shaped stab injury 4x3 cm x cavity deep noted over anterior aspect of right upper abdomen. The medial end is 5 cm below right costochondral margin.

                     On dissection the wound passes backwards, laterally and cutting the underlying muscle, vessel, nerves, piercing the greater Omentum and entire into the retro peritoneal region by cutting the right renal vessels. Peritoneal cavity contains about 1500 ml of fluid blood with clots.

                     -Deep graze abrasion reddish in colour over on area of 4x2 cm noted over dorsum of right great toe.’

                     He has issued Ex.P.26 postmortem certificate in respect of deceased-2 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury abdomen and corresponding internal injuries and the death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. He has collected biology and serology report and has issued final opinion Ex.P.28.

                     2.8.P.W.22, Inspector of Police continued his investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses. After the postmortem, he has recovered the dresses from the dead body of both the deceased which was handed over to him and he recovered the same under Form 91 which were marked as Exs.P.39 and 40 and sent them to the court. Thereafter, on 02.11.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., A-5 was arrested in the presence of one Imran and Ismail, namely P.Ws.7 and 8 and has recorded his confession statement. Later, on 04.11.2015, when he was in search of other accused with his police team, including P.W.18 and P.W.21, they have intercepted a Honda Civic Car bearing registration no.TN 37 AS 2526 and arrested A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 in the presence of P.W.8 and one Ansar Ali and recorded the confession statement of the arrested accused, the admissible portion of the confession statement of A-1 was marked as Ex.P.41, The confession statement of A-2 was also recorded, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.42. The admissible portion of confession of A-3 was marked as Ex.P.43 and the admissible portion of the confession of A-4 was marked as Ex.P.44. Pursuant to the confession statements, bloodstained knife, a fullhand shirt and blootstained black pant was recovered from A-1. Further, a knife and a shirt and pant were recovered from A-2. A Black colour Honda Civic car bearing registration no.TN 37 AS 2526 and a bloodstained shirt and pant were recovered from A-3. A bloodstained t-shirt and pant were recovered under a cover of mahazar from A-4. Further, a Pulsar motor cycle bearing registration no.TN 66 E 0128 was recovered pursuant to the confession of A-4 under a cover of mahazar. The investigating officer forwarded the material objects to the court and the accused were sent to judicial remand. Later, he handed over the investigation to the other Inspector of Police due to his transfer.

                     2.9.P.W.23, Inspector of Police took up the further investigation. He has recorded the statement of witnesses. He prepared the alteration report and sent the same to the court. He took police custody of A-6 who had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur and recorded his confession statement in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant to his confession, he recovered a two wheeler bearing registration no.TN 37 AM 8092 and forwarded the material object under Form 91, Ex.P.46, to the court. After collecting the postmortem certificates and after recording the witnesses, he handed over the case file to his successor investigating officer since he was transferred.

                     2.10.P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, who has taken over the investigation, on completion of the investigation, laid the final report against six accused under sections 147, 148, 302, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109, 302 r/w 149 IPC.

3. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.195 of 2016 and was made over to the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore for trial.

4. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused. When questioned, the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’. After the amendment of the charges, when the accused were questioned again regarding the amended charges, the accused [A-1, A-3 to A-6] denied the charges and sought to examine the witnesses. The charges and the amended charges are as follows:

Accused	Charge sheet sent to court on 04.03.2016	Amended Charge 1 13.12.2018	Amended Charge 2 17.09.2025	Amended Charge 3 25.10.2025
A-1	147, 148, 302	147, 148, 302	147, 148, 302, 302 r/w 149	147, 148, 302, 302 r/w 149
A-2	147, 148, 302
A-3	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 302 r/w 149 r/w 109	147, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109 302 r/w 149,	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts)	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts)
A-4	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109 302 r/w 149	147, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109, 302 r/w 149	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts)	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts)
A-5	147, 302 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109	147, 302 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109	147, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts), 341	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts),
A-6	147, 302 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109	147, 302 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 r/w 109	147, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts), 341	147, 341, 302 r/w 149 (2 counts)

After the last amendment of the charges, though all the accused pleaded further examination, by receiving memo from the counsel for appellants / accused, the judgment in the case was pronounced in the next working day.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked 47 documents, namely Exs.P1 to P.47 and produced M.Os.1 to 20. The court documents, namely Exs.C.1 to C.4 were marked. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

6. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 27.10.2025, found all the accused A1, A3 to A6 guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. The charges against A-2 got abated as he died

7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.1753 of 2025 is filed by A-3 and A-4, Crl.A.No.1798 of 2025 is filed by A-1 and Crl.A.No.233 of 2026 is filed by A-6. No criminal appeal was preferred by A-5.

8. The learned senior counsel and the counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the eyewitnesses account for the entire occurrence is doubtful. P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 14 would not have been the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The conduct of P.W.1 clearly shows that he could not be the eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.1 is none other than the brother-in-law of deceased-1. His conduct clearly shows that he never made any attempt to save the deceased-1 from the attack. His evidence would indicate that he has gone to the house after the occurrence and thereafter, went to the hospital and then to the police station to given Ex.P.1 complaint at 01.30 a.m.. The police station is situate very near to the place of occurrence. The alleged occurrence took place in the busy Oppanakara street in Coimbatore. According to P.W.1, there are six persons at the time when P.W.1 went to his mother-in-laws residence. P.W.2, Sheriff, deceased-2, Abbas Mandri and deceased-1 were there and they have gone to the place of occurrence. If really there was any altercation, there was no attempt whatever was made by P.W.1 and others to prevent such attack made by the accused people. The evidence of P.W.1 is totally contradictory to the earlier statement given in the FIR. In the FIR, it is stated that they went to the spot immediately after receiving the call at around 07.30 p.m. Whereas in the evidence, he has improved his version as if they had discussion for about 1 hour and 15 minutes and thereafter went to the place of occurrence at around 09.30 p.m. and at that time, the occurrence took place.

9. It was submitted that the entire eyewitnesses projected by the prosecution have spoken as if parrot like repetition and their evidence is highly improbable. Their evidence is to the effect that A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-1 stabbed him. Later, A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 stabbed him. This shows that their evidence is attached with artificiality. This shows that all the accused were unnecessarily dragged into the case. Ex.P.1 is the not the first information. P.W.18, the sub Inspector of Police has received intimation from the hospital and he went there. It was the evidence of P.W.2 who admitted deceased-1 in the hospital that the police came to the hospital and he informed about the incident. Therefore, the complaint Ex.P.1 allegedly given at about 01.30 a.m. is an afterthought which is a result of deliberation and discussion. Therefore, the entire evidence of eyewitness is highly doubtful. Further, the prosecution has not even proved the place of occurrence. No bloodstains whatever were recovered from the place of occurrence. The investigating officer has not even made any attempt to take photographs of the place of occurrence. Further, the CCTV footages were available near the place of occurrence as it is a busy area, but the CCTV footages were not collected by the prosecution.

10. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel and the counsel for the appellants that the alleged seizure of the vehicles is also attached with artificiality. The RC book of the vehicle was not seized and the owner of the vehicle has not been established. The so-called eyewitness P.W.3 was examined by the police for the first time only on 06.11.2015 and P.W.4 was examined only on 08.11.2015. P.W.7 was examined for the first time by the police on 02.11.2015 and the statements have reached the court on 04.03.2016. Further, all the material objects reached the court belatedly. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, all these facts create serious doubt about the entire prosecution theory. P.Ws.1 to 3,7 and 14 the eyewitnesses relied on by the prosecution would not have been present in the place of occurrence and that the accused were implicated at a later point of time after discussion. It is the further contention that the so-called eyewitnesses were examined at a later part of the investigation. If really the eyewitnesses are friends and relatives and they were present during the occurrence, their normal conduct would be to give statement to the police at the very earliest point of time. Therefore, these facts creates serious doubt. Further, the trial court has altered the charges at a later point of time. That apart, the trial court relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. The incriminating evidence of P.W.2 was not put to accused. Therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful and hence the appellants are certainly entitled the benefit of doubt and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court requires interference.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 14 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they have clearly spoken about the nature of overt acts of each of the accused. The motive aspect has been clearly spoken by P.W.4. The occurrence took place in a busy area and merely because, bloodstains were not recovered from the place, it cannot be said that no such occurrence took place. Dehors the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.14 clinchingly establishes the guilt of the accused and therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they were examined by the police belatedly and their statements were sent to the court later. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/appellants and hence these criminal appeals deserve to be dismissed.

12. In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

13. Unfortunately, deceased nos.1 and 2 died on 31.10.2015 in a homicidal violence. The prosecution has projected P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 14 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 are brother-in-law of deceased-1. P.W.3 claimed to be the chance witnesses who was said to be in the place of occurrence. P.W.7 is also a chance witness and P.W.14 is said to be a auto driver in the auto stand. The law was set in motion on the basis of Ex.P.1 said to have been registered in the police station by P.W.18 at 01.30 a.m.

14. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is carefully seen, it is the specific case that P.W.1 came to his mother-in-law’s house at 07.00 p.m. where P.W.2, deceased-1, one Sheriff, deceased-2 and one Abbas Mandri were present in the house. Deceased no.1 informed them that in the morning A-1 came to his shop and took away 4 kgs. of Beef and the same was questioned by deceased-1 in the evening. At that time, accused shouted at him as to how dare you came and shouted at them and so, they proclaimed that they will come to his place and will eliminate him. When they were together in the house, A-3 called deceased-1 through cell phone to come near Aroma bakery at Oppanakara street junction to sort out the issue between them. Then, P.W.1 and others had discussion for about 1 hour 15 minutes and went to the place of occurrence at 09.30 p,m. At that time, all the accused were present there. A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 while A-1 stabbed him. When deceased-2 tried to prevent it, A-1 shouted that he should also be caught. Accordingly, A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 stabbed him. Immediately, P.W.2 took deceased-1 to the government hospital and P.W.10 brother of deceased-2 , who came there, took deceased-2 in a two wheeler to the KG hospital. Immediately, P.W.1 came to the house to inform the family members and thereafter, he went to the hospital where he came to know that deceased-1 died. Immediately, he went to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint.

15. The entire perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would show that after the occurrence, deceased-1 was taken to the hospital by P.W.2. P.W.1 returned to his house and thereafter went to the hospital and later had gone to the police station at 01.30 a.m. According to P.W.1, the occurrence took place at 09.30 p.m. P.W.2 in his evidence has also supported the version of P.W.1. According to him, they went to the place of occurrence at 09.30 p.m and A-3 called deceased-1 over cell phone at 07.30 p.m. Therefore, they went to the place of occurrence at 09.30 p.m. He, deceased nos.1 and 2, P.W.1 and one Abbas Mandri, Sheriff have gone to the place of occurrence. According to him, A-5 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-1 stabbed him and A-2 shouted to catch hold deceased-2. Accordingly, A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 stabbed him. Thereafter, P.W.2 took deceased-1 to the government hospital and he also came to know that deceased-2 was taken to the hospital by his brother. The police came to the hospital at 10.30 p.m and he informed the incident to the police. Even, in the cross examination, he had asserted that on 31.10.2015, the Sub Inspector of Police came to the hospital and he narrated the incident to the Sub Inspector at 10.30 p.m. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that with regard to the occurrence, the information was given to the police in the hospital itself. Whereas, according tot the prosecution, the FIR came to be registered at 01.30 a.m by P.W.18 only on the complaint given by P.W.1.

16. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.18 would show that according to him, he had received the death intimation from the hospital at 00.55 hours and went to the hospital. Since there was no relatives of deceased in the hospital, he came back to the police station. At that stage, at around 01.30 a.m., P.W.1 came and gave Ex.P.1 complaint. When the evidence of P.W.18 and P.W.2 is carefully looked into, it is seen that the entire genesis of the first information has been suppressed by the prosecution. P.W.2 admittedly took deceased-1 to the hospital at the first instance. P.W.15 the medical officer attached to the Coimbatore medical college hospital has issued the accident register Ex.P.17 relating to deceased-1. He has stated that only P.W.2 brought deceased-1 to the hospital and he was informed that 3 to 4 persons attacked deceased-1 at around 09.40 p.m. P.W.15 has noted 10 x 4 cm stab injury on the right side chest and laceration measuring 3 x 2 cm on the left leg second toe. The evidence of P.W.15 clearly shows that deceased-1 was first brought to the hospital by P.W.2 and P.W.2 asserted that the Sub Inspector of police came to the hospital and he has given the narration of the incident to the sub inspector in the hospital. Whereas P.W.18, Sub Inspector who registered the FIR at 01.30 a.m., in his evidence has stated that when he went to the hospital, no relatives were present. Later, P.W.1 appeared before him in the police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint. These facts clearly suggests that the earlier information given to the police about the occurrence was totally suppressed by the prosecution. Whereas Ex.P.1 complaint came to be registered at a later point of time at 01.30 a.m. Ex.P.17, the copy of the accident register indicates as if P.W.2 has informed that deceased-1 was attacked by 3 to 4 persons. The same would show that the participation of six accused has not been mentioned by P.W.2. Therefore, the very genesis of the first information has been suppressed in this case.

17. Ex.P.1 came to be filed at 01.30 a.m. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They have seen all the six accused persons in the place of occurrence. According to P.W.1, A-3 and A-5 caught hold of Deceased-1 and A-1 stabbed him. A-1 also instigated A-4 and A-6 to catch deceased-2. Accordingly, A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and thereafter, A-2 caused stab injury on deceased-2. Whereas, according to P.W.2, who also claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence, only A-5 and A-6 caught hold of Deceased-1 and A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 which is totally inconsistent to the evidence of P.W.1. According to the evidence of P.W.1, A-1 instigated A-4 and A-6 to catch hold deceased-2, whereas P.W.2, in his evidence, says that only A-2 instigated A-4 and A-6 to catch hold deceased-2. These contradictory statements of the witnesses, particularly, the so-called eyewitnesses, in the light of the earlier version, one given before the doctor about the number of persons and the narration of incident to the Sub Inspector of Police which is burked by the prosecution, creates serious doubt about the presence of P.Ws1 and 2 at the place of occurrence.

18. According to P.W.1, as usual, he went to his mother-in-law's house at 7.00 p.m. Where deceased nos.1 and 2, P.W.2, one Sheriff and one Abbas Mandri were present. Deceased-1 has informed about the earlier incident which was said to have taken place with regard to taking away of beef by A-1 from the shop of deceased-1 in the morning. While they were discussing, A-3 called deceased-1 over cell phone. Therefore, they had discussion about 1 hour 15 minutes and later, they went to the place of occurrence to sort out the issue. The other persons said to have accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2, namely one Abbas Mandri and Sheriff have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them and no explanation whatsoever was given in this regard. It is relevant to note that P.Ws.1 and 2 are close relatives of deceased-1. The very conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other persons who accompanied them to the place of occurrence assumes significance to assess whether P.Ws.1 and 2 were actually present in the place of occurrence. According to the evidence of P.W.1, immediately after the stab injury of deceased-1, he fell down and P.W.1 has not even made any attempt to find out the nature of the injury of deceased-1. His evidence indicates that immediately, he returned to his house and thereafter, went to the hospital and after the death of deceased-1, he went to the police station at 01.30 a.m. According to him, P.W.10, the brother of deceased-2, came to the spot at the relevant point of time and has taken deceased-2 to KG hospital. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.20, medical officer attached to KG hospital, when carefully perused, would show that he was in the casualty duty on 31.10.2015 and deceased-2 was brought to the hospital by his friends and he has noted 5 x 3 cms stab injury on the right side stomach. P.W.20 had also issued Ex.P.30, accident register and sent an intimation to the police station under Ex.P.31.

19. Ex.P.30 when carefully perused, it is seen that deceased-2 was in fact admitted in the hospital by one Subaib Mohammad which has been clearly noted by P.W.20 in Ex.P.30. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that P.W.10 Sugail Mohamed took deceased-2 to the hospital is highly doubtful. P.W.10 is Sugail Mohamed, whereas the person who admitted deceased-2 in the KG hospital at the first instance is Subaib Mohammad. The evidence of P.W.20 clearly shows that deceased-2 was brought to the hospital only by his friends and not by his brother. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.10 took deceased-2 in a two wheeler to the KG hospital is also highly doubtful in this case.

20. It is further to be noted that P.W.1 in his evidence has stated as if after the phone call from A-3 to deceased-1 at 07.00 p.m, they all had discussion about 1 hour and 15 minutes as to whether to go to the place or not and thereafter, they went to the place of occurrence. Whereas P.W.2 who was said to have accompanied P.W.1, had never stated in his evidence that after the phone call from A-3 calling deceased-1 to come to the place of occurrence, they had discussion for about 1 hour and 15 minutes in the house and thereafter they went to the place of occurrence. In this regard, the complaint Ex.P.1 filed by P.W.1 when carefully seen, it is stated therein that at 07.30 p.m., A-3 called deceased-1 over cell phone to come to the place of occurrence to sort out the issue and immediately, after such a call, P.W.1 and one Sheriff [who was not examined] and deceased-2 [Abib Mohamed] and P.W.2 [Akthar], one Abbas Mandri [who was not examined], Askar Ali-A-3, and deceased-1 went to the place of occurrence. At that time, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 were standing in the place of occurrence. A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-1 caused stab injury on deceased-1. A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 stabbed deceased-2. Immediately, P.W.2 took deceased-1 to CMC hospital and deceased-2 was taken to KG hospital by P.W.10, who is the brother of deceased-2. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the hospital and later gave complaint Ex.P.1. In the entire complaint Ex.P.1, according to P.W.1, when he visited the house at 07.00 p.m., at that time, one Sheriff [not examined], Habeeb Mohamed-deceased-2, P.W.2, one Abbas Mandri [not examined] alone were present in the in-law's place, whereas in the evidence, for the first time, he has introduced six persons who have accompanied him. Further, in the complaint, is the specific case of P.W,1 that immediately after the phone call from A-3 at 07.30 p.m, they proceeded to the place of occurrence. In the entire complaint, there is no whisper whatsoever with regard to the cloudy condition or rainy condition. Whereas, for the first time, in the evidence, P.W.1 has introduced as if there was cloudy condition and rain is expected. That apart, they had discussion for 1 hour and 15 minutes to go to the place of occurrence. This fact creates serious doubt about the very time of occurrence. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in a busy area in Coimbatore in Oppanakara street. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 said in their evidence that the occurrence took place near Aroma bakery, but the rough sketch shows that the scene of occurrence was in the middle of the road in Oppanakara street which is a busy road. It is admitted by the prosecution that the police station is situate in 500 meters from the place of occurrence, but none of the witnesses who accompanied deceased-1 have not gone to the police station immediately after the occurrence. This fact creates some serious doubt about their presence, particularly with regard to the time of occurrence.

21. Further, a detailed complaint has been given by P.W.1 with meticulous details, though the FIR need not contain minute details and the FIR need not be an encyclopedia to the incident. Whereas Ex.P.1 contains minute details right from the motive and phone call from A-3 at the relevant point of time to deceased-1 calling him to come to the place of occurrence and thereafter, they went to the place of occurrence and there, the alleged occurrence took place. The presence of six persons said to have accompanied P.W.1 is found missing in Ex.P.1. That apart, in the complaint, it is specifically alleged that immediately after the phone call from A-3 at 07.30 p.m, they went to the place of occurrence and at that stage, the occurrence took place. Whereas in the evidence, it is the case of prosecution witness that the occurrence took place at around 09.30 p.m. This fact creates serious doubt about the time of occurrence and the place of occurrence also. The cloudy condition and rainy condition has been spoken for the first time in the evidence by P.W.1. The other witnesses have not spoken about any such condition at the relevant point of time. It is further to be stated that it is the evidence of P.W.1 that only A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1, whereas P.W.2 stated that A-5 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2. This also creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

22. Further, the very conduct of P.W.1 has to be looked into. P.W.1 has not even taken any steps to even lift deceased-1 after the occurrence, but casually he returned to home and thereafter, went to the hospital and later has gone to the police station. This conduct of P.W.1 is against the normal human behaviour. If really all the six persons accompanied deceased nos.1 and 2 and in fact, they all anticipated some problem and went to the place of occurrence to sort out the issue, they all would have made some attempts to overpower the accused, but they were all mute spectators and had not even made any attempt to prevent such attack at the relevant point of time. It is further to be noted that the police station is situate 500 meters from the place of occurrence, as per the evidence of investigating officer. They have not even rushed to the police station immediately. It was not the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that at the time of occurrence, it was raining. The investigating officer who claimed to have rushed to the spot after the FIR, prepared observation mahazar and he has recorded that since there was rain, no bloodstains were found in the place of occurrence. The so-called observation mahazar though said to have been prepared on the same day, sent to the court on 16.11.2015 with delay. The reasons for the delay in dispatching the important document has not even been explained by the investigating officer. It is further to be noted that P.W.2 in his evidence would say that after the phone call from A-3, he along with one Sheriff, deceased-2 and 1, Akthar, Jahir and Abbas Mandri all went to the place of occurrence. It is relevant to note that his evidence is parrot like repetition of statement and creates serious doubt and his evidence is attached with artificiality. He has spoken as if one Akthar accompanied him, but the said Akthar is none other than P.W.2 himself. Further, he has admitted deceased-1 in the hospital where he has given statement that only 3 to 4 persons have attacked deceased-1. Further, he has clearly narrated the entire incident to the police when the sub inspector came to the hospital. Whereas the Sub Inspector P.W.18 would state that since relatives were not available in the hospital, he could not record their statements. All these facts creates serious doubt about the first information report.

23. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not even rushed to the police station which is situate in 500 meters away from the place of occurrence and is in busy area, the above conduct creates doubt about their presence at the place of occurrence. According to the witnesses, the occurrence took place at 09.40 p.m, whereas it is evident from the complaint lodged by P.W.1n that immediately after the phone call from A-3, they all went to the place of occurrence at 07.30 p.m. and at that time, the occurrence took place. It is relevant to note that the residence of P.W.1 and deceased-1 is near the place of occurrence. Therefore, the witnesses changing the time of occurrence at a later point of time in their evidence creates serious doubt about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, according to P.W.2, his dresses also got bloodstains. His evidence is to the effect that he took bath and washed the bloodstained clothes. This conduct is unusual and is against the normal human conduct. If really P.W.2 claimed to be the eyewitness and his dresses are stained with blood, the normal conduct would be to hand over the dresses to the police. But, he has stated in his evidence that since he took bath, he washed the bloodstains in the dresses. It is highly improbable and creates serious doubt about his presence.

24. It is further to be noted that according to P.W.1, only one stab injury was caused on deceased-1, whereas the P.W.15 medical officer's evidence when carefully seen, it indicates that laceration measuring 3 x 2 cm on left leg second toe also noted. But, P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed to be the eyewitnesses and they have asserted as if there was only one stab injury. In fact, P.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that he did not know whether deceased-1 suffered injury on the leg. This fact also creates serious doubt about their presence in the place of occurrence. According to P.W.3, he came to the place of occurrence by chance and at that time, A-1 to A-3 came in a black colour Honda Car, A-4 and A-5 came in Pulzar two wheeler and A-6 came in another bike and they were discussing that they want to finish off deceased-1. One Hakkeem was also present along with P.W.3 and when they were standing there, P.Ws.1 and 2, Sheriff came to the place of occurrence along with two deceased persons. His evidence does not show about one Sheriff and Abbas Mandri who have accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2, to the place of occurrence. It is further to be noted that according to him, A-1 stabbed deceased-1, while A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 and at the instance of A-2, A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 caused stab injury to him. Thereafter, P.W.3 went to the hospital at 12.00 midnight on the same day. His evidence clearly indicates that bloodstains were very much available in the place of occurrence. Further, his evidence also shows that there were CCTV cameras in and around the place. P.W.3 claimed to be the eyewitness and also visited the hospital and he has admitted that several CCTV cameras are available in nearby shops.

25. It is further to be noted that P.W.3 claimed to be very close to deceased-1. According to him, with regard to earlier incident of taking away some beef from the shop of deceased-1 by A-1, deceased-1 called P.W.3 through some one. Accordingly, deceased-1 and P.W.3 went to A-1's shop at 04.00 p.m. and there, some quarrel ensued and at that time, A-1 threatened deceased-1 that he will come to his place and will finish him off. When P.W.3 was close to deceased-1, even after the alleged occurrence and having witnesses the crime and gone to the hospital, he never whispered anything to the police, whereas he was examined by the police for the first time only on 06.11.2015 by the subsequent investigating officer. He has not even reported the occurrence to the police station which is situate about 500 meters from the place of occurrence. But his statement was recorded for the first time only on 06.11.2015 and the said statement was sent to the court only on 04.03.2016. This fact creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution. If really P.W.3 is very close to deceased-1, his normal conduct would be that on seeing such double murder, at least to give statement to the police immediately. Absolutely, there is no explanation whatsoever from him to give belated statement to the police on 06.11.2015. It is further to be noted that according to him, prior incident was informed by deceased-1 through some one else, whereas P.W.4 who is said to have been examined to prove the alleged motive has spoken that deceased-1 only called P.W.3 over phone and informed about A-1 taking away some beef from his shop. Thereafter, P.W.4 and P.W.3 and Mohideen Basha (deceased-1) also went to A-1's shop in Ukkadam and questioned him. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 with regard to earlier incident is also doubtful.

26. It is further to be noted that P.W.4 who claimed to be working under deceased-1 and he is also very close relative of deceased-1. According to him, on 31.10.2015, A-1 came to the shop of deceased-1 and took away 4 kgs of beef liver and it was the motive and the same was questioned by deceased-1 later along with P.W.3 and others. Whereas P.W.3 states that deceased-1 sent a word to him through somebody and therefore, he went along with deceased-1 and questioned A-1. But P.W.4 states that P.W.3 was informed through phone and thereafter, all of them went to question A-1. At that time, there arose quarrel and A-1 proclaimed that they will finish deceased-1 off in his place. It is relevant to note that the evidence of P.W.4 also shows that he had also went to the hospital but he had not given any complaint. He was examined for the first time by the police on 08.11.2015 and his statement was sent to court on 04.03.2016. There was no reason as to why such a close friend and relative has not come forward to give any complaint. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that even on the next day, they had also attended the funeral. Such being the case, giving statement to the police after a week creates doubt about the alleged motive and P.W.3 witnessing the crime. It is further to be noted that the very complaint indicates as if A-3 also accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2 and deceased-1 to question the other accused persons and that Ex.P.1 does not implicate A-3. In the evidence, totally a different version has been spoken by the witnesses.

27. As already pointed out, the very Ex.P.1 is not the first information and this came after much deliberations and discussions. Therefore, the very presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The motive spoken to by P.W.4 also creates some doubt to the prosecution case. The entire prosecution theory indicates as if only after A-3 called deceased-1 over mobile phone, the witnesses accompanied deceased to the place of occurrence. The prosecution has not even made any attempt to seize or recover the mobile phone of either A-3 or deceased-1 to find out whether there was actually any call at the relevant point of time from A-3 to deceased-1. The seizure of the mobile phone is the best evidence the prosecution could have been collected, as according to P.W.1, only through the cell phone, A-3 called deceased-1. Therefore, the prosecution could have easily produced such evidence. Further, the three investigating officers, namely P.Ws.22, 23 and 24, Inspectors of Police who conducted investigation, have not made any attempt to collect this piece of evidence. This also creates a serious doubt about the entire genesis of the prosecution case.

28. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in a busy road in Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore and it is surrounded by various shops, etc., The evidence of the witnesses clearly show that CCTV cameras are very much available in nearby shops. The investigating officers have not made any attempt even to find out any footages from nearby shops. As per Ex.P.1 complaint, the occurrence took place immediately after 07.30 p.m,, whereas the time has been totally changed during their examination. This fact clearly suggest that only after knowing that deceased-1 has received some stab injury and later he was admitted in the hospital, only to suit the convenience of time of his admission in the hospital, the time of occurrence was conveniently spoken by the witnesses. The prosecution has not even made any attempt to show that bloodstains in the place of occurrence was washed away in the rain and actually there was rain and that it was a rainy day was not established. The prosecution could have at least taken ordinary photographs to show the nature of the area and locality where the alleged occurrence took place. The investigating officers have not made any attempt even to take photographs of the place of occurrence. This also creates serious doubt about the entire genesis of the prosecution theory.

29. The other eyewitness the prosecution relied on is P.W.7. P.W.7 is also a neighbour of deceased-1 who resides in the same place. According to P.W.7, deceased-1 is the neighbour and he and one Imran as usual were standing in front of the Bakery on 31.10.2015 at about 09.15 p.m. Deceased 1 and 2, one Jaheer, P.Ws.1 and 2, one Abbas Mandri came to the spot. At that time, the accused also came there. A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-1 stabbed him. A-4 and A-6 caught hold of deceased-2 at the instruction of A-2 and A-2 stabbed him and by threatening the witnesses, the accused left the place. P.W.7 and Imran went to the house and on the next day, on hearing the news about the death of deceased-1, he gave statement to the police on 02.11.2015. His conduct assumes significance. According to him, immediately after the occurrence, he went to the house, but he never informed the occurrence to the family members or the neighbours. He has also admitted that there was bloodstains in the place of occurrence. According to him, he himself gave statement to the police on 02.11.2015. If really he was a witness and according to him, he is the neighbour and in the very next house, deceased-1 was owning beef stall and they know each other. Such being the position, P.W.7 casually returning home even after witnessing such a gory incident of two serious injuries on two persons and keeping silent even without informing his family members or neighbours, also creates serious doubt about his presence in the place of occurrence. Further, one Imran who also claimed to have seen the occurrence has not been examined by the prosecution. Even the evidence of P.W.7 does not indicate that the accused came in the car and motor cycle. His 161 Cr.P.C statement was recorded only on 02.11.2015 and it was sent to the court for the first time on 04.03.2016. These facts create serious doubt about his presence in the place of occurrence.

30. It is relevant to note that there were more than six persons apart from P.Ws.3 and 7 along with deceased persons at the time of occurrence but they all remained mute spectators and not even made any attempt even to prevent such attack made by the accused persons. This conduct of witnesses creates serious doubt about the occurrence. If really, P.W.2 who was the eyewitness could have given the exact number of accused persons in the place, he has stated before the doctor at the time of admission of deceased-1, that only 3 to 4 persons came to the place and attacked deceased-1. According to P.W.10 who claimed to be the brother of deceased-2, he came to the place of occurrence at 09.45 p.m and at that time, P.W.2 was taking deceased-1 in an auto to the hospital and finding his brother also lying down, P.W.10 took him to KG hospital and admitted him there. Though he claimed that he had gone to the hospital, the evidence of P.W.20, medical officer, clearly shows that only the friends of deceased-2 brought him to the hospital and it was one Subaid Mohamed who had brought him to the hospital and not P.W.10. Therefore, his evidence does not prove the prosecution case in any manner.

31. P.W.14 is the auto driver in the nearby auto stand. According to him, at around 08.30 p.m., it was slightly drizzling and around 09.00 p.m, all the six accused came there and A-3 and A-5 caught hold of deceased-1 and A-1 stabbed him and A-4 and A6 caught hold of deceased-2 and A-2 stabbed him. The next day, he came to know from the newspaper that two people died and thereafter the police enquired him. Further, according to P.W.14, he has witnessed the occurrence along with Paulraj, Ganeshkumar, Sirajudeen, Asif, Liyakath Ali, Riyasudeen. However, none of them were examined by the prosecution. It is relevant to note that in his evidence he has admitted that in the next day newspaper, it has been appeared as if only two people came and stabbed the deceased. Though the newspaper has not been filed, the fact remains is that if P.W.14 has seen the occurrence along with friends, the prosecution has not examined none of them and further the police station is situate very near. P.W.14 and others have also not reported the same to the police immediately. His statement was also recorded, according to the prosecution, for the first time only on 06.11.2015 and the same has been sent to court only on 04.03.2016. There was inordinate delay and this creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

32. The evidence of medical officers clearly proved this as homicidal violence. Unfortunately, two persons have lost their lives in the homicidal violence. The evidence of postmortem doctors clearly proved the fact that both the deceased died by serious stab injuries, but the fact remains is that who caused the stab injury has to be established. When the very genesis of the FIR is the result of deliberation and there is serious embellishment in filing the FIR and parrot like repetition by the relatives and friends, it is highly unsafe to convict the accused. The motive though is trivial, P.W.4 was examined to prove the motive aspect. The evidence of P.W.4 shows that he is close relative of deceased-1. In this regard, his conduct assumes significance. Having present in the hospital, he never disclosed the same to the police at the earliest point of time. His section 161 statement was recorded only on 06.11.2015 and the statement was sent to court on 04.03.2016. Further, the prosecution also claimed to have seized the material objects M.Os.1 and 2 and the vehicles alleged used in the crime, but no material whatsoever was placed by the investigating officer as to who is the owner of the vehicles. The RC book and other documents relating to the vehicle were not seized and placed. The CCTV camera footages have also not been collected from the place. Further, the very best evidence with regard to the alleged phone call from A-3 to deceased-1 at 07.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, has not been established. There was no reason as to why the best evidence has not been recovered by the investigating officer. The material objects were alledgedly seized by the investigating officer on 04.11.2015, but the mahazar and Form 91 were sent to court for the first time on 16.11.2015. This fact also creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution theory.

33. The very casual and slipshod investigation was conducted in this case. Though three investigating officers have conducted investigation, they have not even made any attempt even to seize the cell phone and CCTV footages from the place of occurrence. Though all the witnesses have made parrot like repetition about the occurrence that the same took place in front of the bakery, a perusal of the rough sketch shows that the occurrence has taken place in the middle of the busy road. Further, all the material objects and mahazar were sent to the court only on 16.11.2015 with delay and there is no proper explanation for the delay caused. Further, the forensic report does not show any incriminating material against the accused. According to the evidence of P.W.8, who was examined with regard to the seizure of material objects, he had voluntarily gone to the police station and informed that on 04.11.2015, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were travelling via Palladam and the police intercepted their car bearing registration No.TN 37 AS 2526 and arrested them and recorded their confession in his presence and pursuant to the same, the material objects were seized. It is the prosecution case that all the bloodstained dresses were seized from the accused at the time of arrest. It is highly improbable that the accused were wearing the same dresses which they were wearing at the time of occurrence for more than three days, till their arrest. The trial court rightly disbelieved the arrest, seizure. Further the forensic reports Exs.P.20 and P.21 do not point out any incriminating evidence like bloodstains in the material objects. Only from the dresses recovered from the dead body of the deceased, the blood group was found and no other items seized from the accused persons contain any blood group. Therefore, the seizure also creates serious doubt and will not prove the prosecution case.

34. Considering the evidence of witnesses and considering their parrot like version of implicating all the accused and further, the evidence of P.W.14, an auto driver, has no connection with the accused persons, but no test identification parade was conducted, all these makes it unsafe to rely on their evidence to convict the accused. Further, the documents were sent to the court with a delay which remained unexplained. That apart, the non recovery of the best piece of evidence, namely the mobile phone allegedly used by A-3 to call deceased-1 to the place of occurrence and non collection of CCTV footages from in and around the locality where the occurrence took place, all creates serious doubt about the prosecution theory. Further, Ex.P.1, complaint registered at the earliest point of time, never implicated A-3 and Ex.P.1 proceeded as if A-3 also accompanied the witnesses. Whereas in the evidence only, A-3 was implicated. Therefore, this is nothing but a clear case of improvement. Further, the time of occurrence differs from Ex.P.1 and the evidence of witnesses. No bloodstains whatsoever was recovered from the place of occurrence and not even photographs were taken to show that the bloodstains were washed away in the rain water. Further, no material was produced to show about the rainy or cloudy condition. It is to be further noted that the trial court relied on the evidence of eyewitness, namely P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 and 14, but in the section 313 Cr.P.C questioning, the evidence of P.W.2 was not even put to the accused which has also caused serious prejudice to the accused.

35. In the light of the above discussions and reasonings, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of any of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

36. At this stage, it is also necessary to consider the case of A5/Jahir @ Jahir Hussain S/o.Abdul Razak, who has not preferred any separate appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. In this regard, to extend parity, it is necessary to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403, wherein, in paragraphs 40 to 44, it has been held as follows :

                     “40.In view of our above discussion, the last question for consideration of the Court is as to what order, if any, is required to be made against the non-appealing accused, i.e., accused No.1, Chandran. From the prosecution evidence, it is clear that some role had been specifically assigned to the accused Chandran. He is the brother-in-law of the deceased and is stated to have been last seen taking the deceased on the moped whereafter the deceased never returned. In normal circumstances, the obvious result would be to leave the nonappealing accused to undergo the punishment awarded to him in accordance with law. But, where the Court finds that the entire case of the prosecution suffers from material contradictions, the most crucial evidence is not reliable, there are definite and material flaws in the case of the prosecution and the Police has failed to discharge its duties at different steps, in that event, it will be difficult for this Court to leave the non-appealing accused to his fate. 41.Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and his liberty can be curtailed by putting him under imprisonment by due process of law only. If the entire case of the prosecution has been found to be unreliable and the prosecution, as a whole, has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, then the benefit should accrue to all the accused persons and not merely to the accused who have preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction.

                     42.In Raja Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1994) 2 SCC 568 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 573], this Court extended the benefit of conversion of sentence to all the accused, from that under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 IPC, including the non-appealing accused. The Court held that in its opinion, the case of the non-appealing accused was not really distinguisbable from other accused persons and it was appropriate that benefit of the judgment should also be extended to the non-appealing accused, Ram Sahai, in that case.

                     43.Again, in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [(2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] this Court clearly stated the principle that: (SCC p. 157, para 12)

                     “12. … [it] has set up a judicial precedent that where on evaluation of the case if the court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible, the benefit of that decision must be extended to the co-accused, similarly situated, though he has not challenged the order by way of an appeal.”

                     44. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2003) 11 SCC 241 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 109] , while referring to the myth of the salutary powers exercisable by the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice to the parties, the Court opined that powers under Article 136 of the Constitution can be exercised by it even suo motu and that the right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizens, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, would be a factor which can be considered by the Court in granting such reliefs .”

                     (emphasis supplied)

37. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salim Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2017) 11 SCC 150 granting the benefit of acquittal to the advantage of non-appealing accused also, has held in paragraphs 20 and 21 as follows:

                     ‘20. Mr Mrinal Kanti Mandal, learned Advocate is right in submitting that in certain cases this Court had granted benefit even to a nonappealing accused. In Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] , this Court observed that if on evaluation of the case, a conclusion is reached that no conviction of any accused was possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to the similarly situated co-accused even though he had not challenged the order by way of the appeal. To similar effect was the dictum of this Court in Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2003) 4 SCC 128 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 801] and in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 11 SCC 241 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 109] and in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 311 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 252] .

                     21. In the circumstances we allow the present appeal, set aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below against the appellant and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him. We further direct that the benefit of this acquittal and our decision will also enure to the advantage of the non-appealing accused, namely, Sk. Sahid alias Bablu. ‘

38. Therefore, the Supreme Court has consistently held that, where the appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the entire prosecution case and no conviction of any of the accused can be sustained, the benefit of such finding can also be extended to a non-appealing accused who is similarly situated.

39. In the case on hand, as already stated supra, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, it is really unsafe to convict the accused based on the evidence and the documents available and the entire prosecution case is shrouded with serious doubt. Therefore, all the accused are certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt.

40. In the light of the above, these three criminal appeals are allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 27.10.2025 made in S.C.No.195 of 2016 is set aside and all the appellants herein are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Though A-5 in this case, namely Jahir @ Jahir Hussain S/o.Abdul Razak has not filed any separate appeal before this court as against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court, since this court has disbelieved the entire prosecution case, the benefit of acquittal should automatically be extended to all the accused in this case, including A-5. Accordingly, A-5 is also acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that A-5 is also undergoing incarceration in the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

41. Therefore, the appellants herein, namely A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-6 and also A-5 (who has not filed any appeal before this court, details given supra), are therefore directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused, shall be refunded to them. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide