(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet District, in Spl.S.C.No.95 of 2024, dated 16.09.2025.)

Common Judgment:

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

Challenging the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet District, in S.C.No.95 of 2024, dated 16.09.2025, convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 to A5 as follows, A1 has filed Crl.A.No.1843 of 2025 and A2 to A5 have filed Crl.A.No.1846 of 2025.



2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :

                          2.1. The deceased Vivekananthan was the District Secretary of a political party, namely Makkal Desam. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He had married P.W.1 who belongs to other community. He used to expose the cause of the downtrodden and also raise voice as against the atrocities against the Scheduled Caste. A1 was involved in sand theft and was also selling ganja and illicit arrack which was objected by the deceased. Therefore, A1 developed enmity as against the deceased. Several times, A1 had also threatened the deceased of dire consequences, about which, the deceased had informed P.W.7 on many occasions.

                          2.2. On 31.01.2024, after attending the political party meeting at Kaveripakkam, at about 06.00 p.m., P.W.2 (Ajith) and the deceased left in a two wheeler (M.O.7). While P.W.2 was driving the two wheeler, the deceased was seated as a pillion rider in the two wheeler. At a distance of 2 km after crossing Wallajah Toll Gate towards Kaveripakkam, near Sunbeam School, a Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN-73-AX-8024 (M.O.6) came and dashed the two wheeler from its behind. Immediately, P.W.2 fell down at around two metres along with his bike. At that time, the accused persons A1 to A5 got down from the Car and indiscriminately cut the deceased with M.O.1 to M.O.5 (sickles). P.W.2, out of fear, ran away from that place.  After sometime, Police came to the spot and P.W.2 also went to the place, however, the deceased was not found at that place. P.W.2 immediately gave the mobile number of the deceased to the Police. On calling his mobile number, the Police spotted the location and found the body of the deceased lying in the bushes across the road with his face completely mutilated. The statement recorded from P.W.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P2.

3. P.W.3 (Arul) has stated that, on 31.01.2024, when he was returning in his two wheeler at around 07.30 p.m., near Sunbeam School, he saw a Red Colour Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN-73-AX-8024 (M.O.6) being parked and he also found a Scooty bearing Registration No.TN-73-AY-6468 (M.O.7) fallen down in front of the Car. He was under the impression that an accident would have happened and with the help of the headlight of his two wheeler, when he looked around, he saw a group of five persons indiscriminately cutting a person. With the help of the headlight, he could identify that it was A1 to A5 who were inflicting severe cut injuries on Vivekanandan (deceased) with sickles (M.O.1 to M.O.5). Afraid of seeing that, he returned home. Then, at about 10.00 p.m., he informed the same to P.W.7, who belongs to the same political party namely Makkal Desam. Then, on 10.02.2024, he informed about the incident to the Police. The statement recorded from P.W.3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P3.

4. P.W.7 (Mathialagan) has stated that, on 31.01.2024, after attending the party meeting, at about 08.30 p.m., the deceased alone left in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-73-AY-6468 (M.O.7). Later, between 09.45 p.m. and 10 p.m., P.W.3 called him through phone and informed him that A1 and four others were indiscriminately cutting the deceased. Immediately, P.W.7 informed the same to P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, over phone. Then, he (P.W.7) along with Santhakumar (District President of the Political Party) and other party members went to the place of occurrence. However, the deceased was not there. P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 (family members of the deceased) came there. The Police informed them that the deceased was taken to the Hospital.

5. P.W.1 (wife of the deceased) has stated that, on 31.01.2024 between 09.30 p.m. and 10 p.m., she received a call from P.W.7 that her husband (deceased) had been inflicted with severe cut injuries and she was asked to come to the place of occurrence. P.W.1, along with her family members, went to the spot. However, the deceased was not found there. She was informed that the deceased was taken to the Hospital. On reaching the Hospital, she found her husband’s face mutilated and right hand amputated. Thereafter, she went to the Police Station on the next day, i.e., on 01.02.2024, along with the office bearers of the political party and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1).

6. P.W.4 is the father of the deceased. P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased. They have spoken about the previous enmity between A1 and the deceased.

7. On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P1) from P.W.1, P.W.17 (Inspector of Police) registered an FIR on 01.02.2024 at 01.00 p.m. in Crime No.41 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act as against A1 and four others. He forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Court and the superior Police officials. The FIR is marked as Ex.P19.

8. P.W.18 (Assistant Superintendent of Police), as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police vide Ex.P20, took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P21) in the presence of P.W.8 and one Ranjith Kumar. Then, he seized the blood stained earth (M.O.8), ordinary earth (M.O.9), blood stained bracelet (M.O.10) and two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-73-AY-6468 (M.O.7) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P5). Then, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the Hospital in the presence of panchayatars and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P22). Then, he sent the dead body for postmortem through Head Constable (P.W.13) along with requisition letter (Ex.P23).

9. P.W.16 (Medical Officer attached to Government Vellore Medical College) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and noted down the following injuries :

                          “Antemortem external injuries seen over the body :

                          1. An oblique cut injury of 12 x 1 cm x cranial cavity deep seen over right side of the scalp, starts at the outer 3rd of right eyebrow and ends 8 cm above the right ear prima over parietal region.

                          2. Another oblique cut injury of 18 x 1.5 cm x cranial cavity deep seen over right side of the scalp and face runs over the inner aspect of right eye, nose and lips, 3 cm inward to the injury No.1 at the lower end and united at the upper end over the parietal region and makes an inverted ‘V’ shape.

                          A horizontal cut injury of 5 x 0.5 cm x bone deep seen intersecting the injury No.2, 7 cm from the upper end.

                          4. A horizontal cut injury of 8.5 x 1 cm x cavity deep seen intersecting the injury No.1 & 2 over the right side of the forehead, 5 cm above the eyebrow.

                          On further dissection of above mentioned all the injuries shows comminuted and depressed fractures of all underlying bones over an area of 12 x 2.5 cm and pierces the brain parenchyma over fronto-parietal region.

                          5. An avulsion cut injury of 9 x 4.5 x 8 cm which creates a triangle shape flap of the scalp over right parietal region and unite with injury No.1 & 2 meeting point. And further it shows avulsion of underlying parietal bone which creates a window of size 7 x 4 x 6.5 cm, exposing the underlying dura matter.

                          6. An avulsion cut injury of 5 x 4 cm x bone deep over the vertex of the scalp adjacent to the injury No.5.

                          7. A vertical cut injury of 9 x 0.5 cm x bone deep seen over right side of the occipital region extends backward from the injury No.5.

                          8. Three vertical parallel cut injuries of size measuring 11 x 0.2 cm x nasal cavity deep, 7 x 0.2 cm x nasal cavity deep, 8 x 0.5 cm x cavity deep cutting the underlying nasal bone from right to left respectively seen over center of the fore head, starts 8 cm above the bridge of the nose and runs downward over the nose and extends over the upper lip.

                          Three deep cut injuries coalesce with each other and chops the left eye, facial bones (orbital bone & maxilla) exposing the cranial cavity over an area of 11 x 9 cm x cranial and oral cavity deep seen and disfigures the left side of the face. Multiple comminuted cut fractures with depression of the bone fragments seen with chopping of the left frontal lobe of brain parenchyma along with dura and arachnoid over an area of 7 x 5.5 x 4 cm and left eye ball completely disfigured.

                          10. An oblique cut injury seen over left side of the face measuring 17 x 1.5 cm x oral cavity deep, starts in front of the left ear lobe, runs downward and ends over right side of the chin. Its chopped the underlying facial muscles, nerves and vessels with cut fracture of left maxilla along with fracture of 2nd to 5th left upper teeth and lower right 1st to 3rd teeth and comminuted fracture of right side of the lower jaw.

                          11. Another oblique cut injury seen parallel and 1.5 cm above the injury No.10, measuring 12 x 2 cm x nasal cavity deep seen coalesce with injury No.8 at its lower aspect with comminuted fracture of nasal and ethamoid bones of left side of the face.

                          12. Near total amputation of right hand 5 cm above the wrist joint with complete cut fracture of both bones of lower end of right forearm and a small skin tag found attached over the back side.

                          13. A horizontal cut injury of 6 x 3 x 1.5 cm seen over back of the right hand, 3 cm below the injury No.12.

                          14. A horizontal cut injury of 4 x 0.8 x 0.5 cm seen over front of left knee.

                          15. A horizontal cut injury of 3 x 1 x 1 cm seen over outer aspect of middle 3rd of left forearm.

                          The margins of the above mentioned all cut injuries were sharp and clean cut with multiple directions and angles.

                          16. Reddish brown abrasions of (A) 1 x 1 cm, 1 x 0.8 cm, 1.8 x 1 cm, 1 x 0.5 cm seen over front of right knee, (B) 1.5 x 1 cm over inner aspect of right foot at big toe, (C) 7 x 2 cm over back of right hand and wrist, (D) 1.5 x 1 cm over outer aspect upper 3rd of left forearm.

                          17. Multiple parallel oblique linear reddish brown abrasions of varying size over an area of 16 x 9 cm seen over left side of lower back.”

Accordingly, P.W.16 issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P17). After receipt of Viscera Report (Ex.P14), he issued his final opinion (Ex.P18) opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.

10. After postmortem, the dresses on the body of the deceased were recovered by the Police as M.O.21 to M.O.25 and were forwarded to the Court vide Form-91 (Ex.P37).

11. P.W.18 (Investigating Officer), in continuation of his investigation, on 02.02.2024 at about 06.30 a.m., arrested A1 to A5 and recorded their confession in the presence of P.W.9 and one Ravindran. The admissible portion of the confession made by A1 is marked as Ex.P6. Based on his confession, the Investigating Officer seized the Red Colour Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN-73-AX-8024 (M.O.6) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P8) and also seized the blood stained sickles (M.O.1 to M.O.5) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P9). The admissible portion of the confession made by A2 is marked as Ex.P7. Based on his confession, the Investigating Officer seized the blood stain dresses (M.O.11 to M.O.15) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P10). Then, he sent the accused to the Court for remanding them to judicial custody and also forwarded the Material Objects to the Court. Thereafter, he altered the case into one under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 302 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, vide Alteration Report (Ex.P24).

12. Then, the Investigating Officer took custody of the accused A6 to A10 who surrendered before the Court and recorded their confession in the presence of P.W.10 (Village Administrative Officer) and her Assistant Jayachandran. The admissible portion of the confession made by A6 is marked as Ex.P11. Based on his confession, the Investigating Officer seized the Red Colour Baleno Car bearing Registration No.TN-83-MA-4678 (M.O.16), two wooden logs (M.O.17 and M.O.18) and two iron rods (M.O.19 and M.O.20) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P12). Then, he arrested the accused A11 and recorded his confession in the presence of P.W.10 (Village Administrative Officer) and her Assistant Jayachandran. Then, he sent these accused persons to Court for remanding them to judicial custody.

13. Thereafter, he collected the Community Certificates of the accused A1 to A10 which are marked as Exs.A25 to A34. He also collected the Community Certificate of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.A35. Again, based on his investigation, he altered the case into one under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 302 r/w. 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, vide Alteration Report (Ex.P36).

14. Then, he seized the CCTV Camera Footage at Wallajah Toll Gate in a Pendrive (Ex.P15) from P.W.15 under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P38). The Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P16. After examining the witnesses and recording their statements, he handed over the case file to P.W.19 for further investigation.

15. P.W.19 (Deputy Superintendent of Police), as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police vide Ex.P39, continued the investigation. He collected the Community Certificate of A11, which is marked as Ex.P40. After examining the witnesses including the Scientific Officer (P.W.11) who issued Biology Report (Ex.P13) and the Scientific Officer (P.W.12) who issued Viscera Report (Ex.P14) and after collecting various reports including Serology Reports (Exs.P41 and P42), P.W.19 completed the investigation and filed a final report for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 302 r/w. 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, as against the accused A1 to A11, before the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Cases, Vellore, and the case was originally numbered as Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2024.

16. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. The Special Court framed the charges under Section 147 IPC as against A1 to A11; Section 148 IPC as against A1 to A11; Section 341 IPC as against A1 to A11; Section 3(1)(r) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as against A1, A3 & A5; Section 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as against A1, A3, A5, A9 & A10; Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC as against A1 to A11; Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as against A1, A3, A5, A9 & A10; and Section 120-B r/w. 302 IPC as against A1 to A11. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

17. Thereafter, it appears that the case has been transferred to the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranipet District and re-numbered as Spl.S.C.No.95 of 2024.

18. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19, marked Exs.P1 to P42 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.25.

19. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused and when the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same. On the side of the defence, no one was examined nor was any document marked.

20. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by its judgment dated 16.09.2025, acquitted A1 of the offences under Sections 341, 120-B r/w. 302 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; A2 & A4 of the offences under Sections 341 and 120-B r/w. 302 IPC; A3 & A5 of the offences under Sections 341, 120-B r/w. 302 and Sections 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and A6, A7, A8, A9, A10 & A11 of all the charges framed against them. However, the trial Court convicted A1 to A5 and sentenced them for the other offences as stated supra.

21. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, A1 has filed Crl.A.No.1843 of 2025 and A2 to A5 have filed Crl.A.No.1846 of 2025.

22. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the entire prosecution case has been fabricated against the appellants. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are projected as eye-witnesses, is highly doubtful. P.W.2, in his evidence, has stated that a Car came from behind and hit the two-wheeler in which he and the deceased were travelling. However, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that either the two-wheeler or the Car had suffered any damage. Further, the ownership of the two-wheeler has also not been established. Though P.W.2 has stated that the deceased was travelling along with him in the two-wheeler, P.W.7 has stated in his evidence that the deceased had left alone after the meeting. Therefore, the very presence of P.W.2 along with the deceased at the relevant point of time is highly doubtful. The learned counsel would further submit that, according to P.W.2, he also sustained injuries when he fell down. However, no material, whatsoever, has been placed on record to establish that he sustained any injury due to the fall from the two-wheeler. The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that five persons indiscriminately cut the deceased after getting down from the Car after hitting the two-wheeler. On witnessing the same, out of fear, P.W.2 ran away from the place. Thereafter, when he returned to the spot after some time, the body of the deceased was not found there. Subsequently, when the Police searched for the deceased with the help of the tower location, the body was found at another place with the face completely mutilated. The learned counsel would submit that the conduct of P.W.2 in not giving any statement to the Police immediately after witnessing the alleged occurrence creates serious doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence.

23. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.3 is another so-called eye-witness who claims to have witnessed the occurrence. However, P.W.3 has never stated that he saw P.W.2 at the place of occurrence. According to P.W.3, he informed P.W.7 about the occurrence. In turn, P.W.7 informed P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased. P.W.7, thereafter, rushed to the spot along with other party members. However, the body was not found there. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the conduct of P.W.3 is contrary to normal human conduct. According to P.W.3, he did not disclose anything about the occurrence until 09.02.2024. All these circumstances create serious doubt about the entire prosecution case.

24. The learned counsel would further submit that the statements of the witnesses reached the Court for the first time only on 31.05.2024. According to him, the investigation is highly doubtful. No investigation was conducted to identify the owner of the two-wheeler. The Registration Certificate has not been produced before the Court. The conduct of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is highly doubtful. P.W.2 did not implicate the accused at the earliest point of time when his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P2) was recorded. Though the statement was recorded after 45 days from the date of occurrence, P.W.2 implicated A1 to A5 for the first time only before the Court. Therefore, it is his contention that the evidence of P.W.2 is highly doubtful.

25. The learned counsel would further submit that, if P.W.3 had really informed P.W.7 about the occurrence on the same day, there is no reason why P.W.7 did not lodge any complaint against the accused immediately. The complaint marked as Ex.P1 was filed only on the next day i.e., on 01.02.2024 at 1.00 p.m. The FIR reached the Court only at 08.20 p.m. after considerable delay. This circumstance creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

26. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.17 (Inspector of Police) visited the place of occurrence immediately after receiving information regarding the incident. According to him, P.W.2 had already left the place. However, P.W.18 (Investigating Officer) has stated that P.W.2 was very much present even during the investigation. In such circumstances, there was no reason why the statement of P.W.2 was not recorded immediately. The fact remains that his statement was recorded only after considerable delay.

27. It is his further contention that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that there was a protest by members of the political party prior to the registration of the FIR demanding the arrest of certain persons. According to the learned counsel, the FIR came to be registered only thereafter due to the pressure exerted by the party members and the appellants were unnecessarily implicated in the case. Therefore, he would submit that the entire prosecution case is highly doubtful and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be interfered with.

28. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that P.W.2 and P.W.3 had witnessed a gory incident and it would be normal human conduct for them to run away from the place out of fear. Mere delay in examining P.W.2 and P.W.3 would not dent the prosecution case. Further, it is his contention that the CCTV footage clearly shows that the Swift Car (M.O.6) passed through the Wallajah Toll Gate at about 09.18 p.m. This fact has been clearly spoken to by P.W.15. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, these circumstances clearly establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime. Therefore, mere delay in lodging the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, he would submit that the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants and the said judgment does not require any interference.

29. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant/P.W.1, by contending that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the de facto complainant/victim is entitled to an opportunity of being heard in the Criminal Appeal, has filed his written arguments in support of the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the minor discrepancies and natural variations in the evidence of the witnesses would not go to the root of the prosecution case. The cumulative effect of the connected circumstances has to be considered. He would further submit that P.W.1 and the family members of the deceased, namely P.W.4 to P.W.6, have spoken about the motive. P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the eye-witnesses, have clearly spoken about the occurrence and the injuries inflicted by A1 to A5 upon the deceased. Their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, mere delay in sending the FIR and recording the statements of the witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, he would submit that the finding of the trial Court convicting the appellants is liable to be confirmed.

30. In the light of the above submissions, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal:

                          i. Whether the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are projected as eye-witnesses, is reliable to sustain the conviction of the appellants?

                          ii. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt?

31. We have perused the entire materials available on record.

32. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that A1 was involved in sand theft and was also engaged in selling ganja and illicit arrack. The deceased who was the District Secretary of a political party namely Makkal Desam had objected to the same. The deceased also used to raise voice for the cause of the Scheduled Caste people. According to the prosecution, this had resulted in enmity between A1 and the deceased. It is further alleged that, prior to the occurrence, A1 had threatened the deceased with dire consequences on several occasions and the deceased had informed the same to P.W.7, P.W.1 and his family members.

33. According to the prosecution, on 31.01.2024, the deceased came to Kaveripakkam to attend a meeting of his political party. After the meeting, he left the place in a two-wheeler along with P.W.2 at about 08.30 p.m. While proceeding in the two wheeler with the deceased seated as pillion rider, near Sunbeam School, a Swift Car (M.O.6) came from behind and hit the two-wheeler, in which, P.W.2 and the deceased were travelling. Thereafter, A1 to A5 got down from the Car and indiscriminately cut the deceased with sickles (M.O.1 to M.O.5). On seeing the same, P.W.2 ran away from the place out of fear.

34. Thereafter, the Police came to the spot. P.W.2 also returned to the spot on seeing the Police. At that time, the body of the deceased was not found at the place of occurrence. P.W.2 gave the mobile number of the deceased to the Police. The Police called the deceased's mobile phone and with the help of the tower location, they located the body of the deceased in the nearby bushes across the road. The face of the deceased was found to be completely mutilated.

35. Though P.W.2 claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, he has also stated that he sustained injuries. However, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to establish that P.W.2 had sustained any injury. Though P.W.2 had initially stated that he had taken treatment in the Hospital with the assistance of the Police, he subsequently changed his version and stated that he had not taken treatment with the assistance of the Police. Be that as it may.

36. According to P.W.2, immediately after the Car hit the two-wheeler, A1 to A5 indiscriminately cut the deceased at the same place. After P.W.2 ran away, the Police came to the spot. At that time, the body of the deceased was not found there. It is relevant to note that, if the evidence of P.W.2 is true, there should have been blood stains at the place where the deceased was allegedly attacked. According to P.W.2, the deceased was indiscriminately cut by the accused immediately after the Car hit the two-wheeler. In such circumstances, there should have been blood stains on the road. However, the Police personnel who initially visited the place immediately have not been examined by the prosecution.

37. P.W.17 (Inspector of Police), who registered the FIR, has clearly admitted that one Saravanan and one Soundarrajan (Sub-Inspectors of Police) were sent to the spot immediately. However, neither of them has been examined. P.W.17 has also stated that they reached the spot on the same night. According to the evidence of P.W.17, P.W.2 was present when they visited the place. If that is so, there was no reason why P.W.17 or the other Police officials did not record the statement of P.W.2 immediately and proceed with the investigation.

38. It is relevant to note that P.W.2 also did not give any statement to the Police regarding the alleged occurrence witnessed by him. Such conduct of P.W.2 creates serious doubt. If P.W.2 had really accompanied the deceased and witnessed such a gruesome incident, his normal conduct would have been to disclose the incident to the Police, particularly when the Police had reached the spot immediately. However, P.W.2 has disclosed the same only at a later point of time. Even assuming that P.W.2 had left the place out of fear after witnessing the occurrence, nothing prevented him from disclosing the incident to the Police in the early morning. By that time, the leaders and members of the political party to which the deceased belonged had gathered and reached the spot. On the very next morning, there was also a protest demanding the arrest of the accused. Even at that stage P.W.2 did not come forward to give his statement.

39. According to P.W.17, P.W.2 had run away from the place and therefore, his statement could not be recorded. However, P.W.18 (Investigating Officer) in the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police, has admitted that P.W.2 was very much present during the investigation. Therefore, the explanation offered by P.W.17 for not recording the statement of P.W.2 immediately, cannot be accepted. This circumstance creates serious doubt about the very genesis of the occurrence.

40. It is further relevant to note that P.W.2 was examined by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the said statement has been marked as Ex.P2. P.W.2 has not disclosed the names of the accused in his earlier statement. In fact, the identity of the accused is not even whispered in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, for the first time before the Court, P.W.2 has implicated all the accused. This circumstance creates serious doubt about the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence as well as the reliability of his subsequent version.

41. It is further to be noted that, if the Car had really hit the two-wheeler from behind, there should have been at least some damage to both the vehicles. However, the Police have not conducted any investigation in this regard to ascertain whether either the Car or the two-wheeler had suffered any damage. This is another circumstance which creates serious about the prosecution version.

42. According to P.W.2, he was riding the two-wheeler and the deceased was seated as a pillion rider. However, P.W.7, who belongs to the same political party namely Makkal Desam, has stated in his evidence that, after the political party meeting, the deceased left alone in the two-wheeler. He has not stated that P.W.2 accompanied the deceased. This evidence creates further doubt regarding the presence of P.W.2. It is also relevant to note that P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, has stated that her husband had gone from Kaveripakkam to Arcot to attend the function in his Car. If the deceased had gone to the function in a Car, it is difficult to comprehend as to how he thereafter returned on a motorcycle along with P.W.2. This circumstance also creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution theory.

43. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish whether P.W.2 was the owner of the two-wheeler. The Registration Certificate has not been produced before the Court. Therefore, the very involvement of the two-wheeler in the manner alleged by the prosecution has not been satisfactorily established.

44. The other eye-witness relied upon by the prosecution is P.W.3. According to him, while he was returning to his house from Bagaveli on his two-wheeler through the Bangalore-to-Chennai Highway, near Sunbeam School, he noticed a red colour Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN-73-AX-8024 (M.O.6) parked near the road. In front of the said Car, he found a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-73-AY-6468 (M.O.7) lying on the road. Under the impression that an accident might have occurred, P.W.3 searched the surrounding area with the help of the headlight of his motorcycle. At that time, he saw A1 to A5 indiscriminately attacking the deceased with sickles (M.O.1 to M.O.5) near the bushes on the left side of the road. Immediately thereafter, out of fear, he left the place and reached his house at about 10.00 p.m. He then called P.W.7 and informed him about the occurrence. Thereafter, he informed P.W.18 (Investigating Officer) about the occurrence on 10.02.2024.

45. However, we are of the view that this version of P.W.3 is an improvement at a later point of time. He has not stated the same in the statement given by him to the Investigating Officer. Further, the evidence of P.W.3 indicates that he did not disclose the occurrence to anyone until 09.02.2024. When a person is in a position to identify the accused and claims to have witnessed such a gory incident, his normal conduct would be to disclose the same at least to his family members or to the Police. The fact that P.W.3 remained silent for such a considerable period creates serious doubt about his version.

46. It is further relevant to note that, according to P.W.3, he witnessed the occurrence at the same place opposite to Sunbeam School. However, he has never stated that he saw P.W.2 at the place of occurrence. If P.W.2 was really present there, P.W.3 would have noticed him. This circumstance creates further doubt about the presence of P.W.2. Though P.W.3 claims to have informed the Police about the occurrence, his statement was recorded only on 10.02.2024. It is further relevant to note that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reached the Court for the first time only on 31.05.2024. The delay both in recording the statement and in forwarding the same to the Court creates serious doubt about the version of P.W.3.

47. Further, according to P.W.3, he informed P.W.7 about the occurrence at about 10.00 p.m. after reaching his house. However, P.W.7 has not stated in his evidence that P.W.3 called him while A1 to A5 were attacking the deceased. This creates a material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7.

48. It is further relevant to note that, if P.W.7 had really received information regarding the attack by A1 to A5 and had informed P.W.1 about the same over phone on the very same day, there is no reason why P.W.1 did not immediately disclose the names of the accused to the Police or lodge a complaint. According to P.W.1, she reached the spot along with her family members. They did not find the deceased there, as the body had already been removed to the Hospital. If P.W.1 had really received a phone call from P.W.7 informing her that A1 to A5 had attacked her husband, the normal conduct of the wife would have been to disclose the names of the accused to the Police immediately. There was no reason for her to wait until the next day and lodge the complaint only at 1.00 p.m. This circumstance also creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution case.

49. The evidence of P.W.1 further shows that there was agitation by members of the political party demanding the arrest of particular persons. Only thereafter, the complaint (Ex.P1) came to be lodged. This circumstance cannot be completely ignored, particularly in the case of political rivalry. If P.W.1 had really received information from P.W.7 regarding the identity of the accused and the manner of attack, there was no reason for her to refrain from lodging a complaint immediately by disclosing the names of the accused even at the very first instance. It is not the case of P.W.1 that she had not gone to the Hospital or that she had not met the Police immediately. She had gone to the spot on the same day and thereafter, went to the Hospital. However, she did not choose to give a complaint on the same night. Her evidence further shows that, when Ex.P1 came to be filed, she was accompanied by the office bearers of the political party. Therefore, the very genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful.

50. It is further relevant to note that the evidence of P.W.1 shows that there was considerable agitation and that the incident was also reported in local television channels. The members of the political party insisted upon the arrest of A1 and others. The Police were initially reluctant to arrest them which resulted in further agitation. This circumstance also creates a possibility that the FIR came to be lodged after deliberation and consultation in the backdrop of such pressure and agitation.

51. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was facing 16 criminal cases including a case under the Women Harassment Act and that he was a history sheeter bearing History Sheet No.408/2019. Therefore, the possibility of the deceased having been attacked by some other persons cannot be completely ruled out.

52. The delay in lodging the FIR and the further delay in forwarding the FIR to the Court also assumes significance. The FIR reached the Court only at 08.20 p.m. The prosecution has not offered any satisfactory explanation for such delay. All these circumstances cumulatively create serious doubt about the very genesis of the occurrence. The possibility of the names of some of the accused having been introduced at a later stage cannot therefore be completely ruled out.

53. Further, according to P.W.2, after the initial attack by A1 to A5 on the road, the body of the deceased was not found at the place of occurrence. The body was subsequently located only after the mobile phone of the deceased was called by one Saravanan, Sub-Inspector of Police. In such circumstances, the prosecution ought to have produced the relevant call details to establish the manner in which the body was located. No such material has been produced. The said Saravanan, Sub-Inspector of Police who allegedly visited the spot on the same night, has also not been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, there is no evidence to establish whether P.W.3 actually called P.W.7 at the relevant point of time. This fact could have been easily established by producing the call details relating to P.W.3 and P.W.7. However, the prosecution has not produced any such material. This omission also creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

54. The prosecution has seized two Cars, namely M.O.6 and M.O.16, alleging that the accused travelled in the Car. According to the prosecution, the Car (M.O.6) crossed the Toll Gate between 09.00 p.m. and 09.30 p.m. P.W.15 has been examined to establish that he downloaded the CCTV footage showing the Swift Car (M.O.6) crossing the Toll Gate. We have also seen the said video footage. We could not identify any registration number from the footage. The trial Court has also found from the CCTV footage that, at the relevant point of time, M.O.6 had not crossed the Toll Gate. Further, according to the prosecution, M.O.6 is a red colour Swift Car. However, from the video footage, we could see only a white colour Car crossing the Toll Gate at the relevant point of time. Even assuming that the Car had crossed the Toll Gate, it would not by itself advance the prosecution case. The prosecution has not established who was the owner of the Car or how the Car came into the possession of the accused. These aspects have not been established by prosecution with any satisfactory evidence.

55. P.W.18 (Assistant Superintendent of Police) who conducted the investigation has stated that he came to the spot at about 09.00 to 09.30 p.m. on 31.01.2024. Though it is evident that the Police party had reached the spot immediately, P.W.18 has not taken any action against the Police party for not taking any immediate action upon seeing the dead body. His evidence further indicates that the dead body was initially removed to the Hospital in an Auto. However, there is no investigation as to who removed the body from the place of occurrence or who brought the deceased to the Hospital in the first instance. There is absolutely no evidence on these crucial aspects. The Accident Register has also not been produced before the Court. Therefore, merely on the basis of the alleged seizure and recovery of certain Material Objects, the prosecution case cannot be accepted. Ex.P41 (Serology Report) indicates that one of the billhooks contained ‘B’ Group which appears to be the blood group of the deceased. However, in our considered view, this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, particularly when there is no reliable material connecting the seized weapon with the commission of the crime. In our opinion, we find that the substantive evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 appears to be artificial and their presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. In such circumstances, the recovery of one weapon containing blood group of the deceased by itself cannot be treated as sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

56. In the light of the narrative supra, we are of the view that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is attached with artificiality and is not reliable and does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time, claiming themselves to have witnessed the occurrence, itself is highly doubtful. Even further, as discussed above, the prosecution suffers from various infirmities and creates serious doubt about the very genesis of the case and the entire theory as projected by the prosecution. Hence, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

57. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the trial Court holding the appellants/A1 to A5 guilty of the offences and convicting and sentencing them, is liable to be set aside.

58. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the trial Court insofar as convicting and sentencing the appellants/A1 to A5 for the offences as stated supra, is set aside. The acquittal of the appellants/A1 to A5 in respect of the other offences and the acquittal of A6 to A11, remain intact. The appellants/A1 to A5 are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. They are 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 appellants shall be refunded to them. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.