The facts leading to conviction are as follows:a) The appellants/A1 and A2 and other accused (A3 to A6) belong to Scheduled Caste Community.The deceased Sakthipandian, an auto driver, belongs to Thevar Community.P.W.6 Ganesan is the brother-in-law of the deceased.P.W.7 Marithai is the wife of the deceased.b) One year prior to the date of occurrence, the accused No. 1 Muruganandam engaged the auto of the deceased, but did not pay the hire charges.On that reason, there was a quarrel between them.Sometimes later, the deceased Sakthipandian on the eve of Thevar Guru Pooja, fitted mike set in a van and displayed songs praising Thevar in public place and on noticing this, the accused 1 to 6, who belong to Scheduled Caste raised objection.Due to this also there was a quarrel between these two groups.c) Some days prior to the date of occurrence, one Shanmugiah Pandian, the Vice President of Thevar Youth Forum was arrested by the police.Opposing this arrest, the deceased Sakthipandian arranged to get posters raising objection slogans against the police and pasted the same in public places.Due to this also, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.d) On 24.12.1997 at about 3.00 p.m., A1 to A3 came to the auto stand and requested the deceased to take them to Lanthai to hand over the TV which got repaired, to the Panchayat Union.Accordingly, A1 to A3 were taken and after handing over the TV to the Panchayat Union, they came back.Near the place of occurrence, other accused were waiting.A1 by pulling the shirt of the deceased, the driver of the auto, asked him to stop the vehicle.The deceased stopped the auto and thereafter, the deceased was forcibly taken from the auto to the place of occurrence, where he was stabbed to death by all the accused.e) On hearing of the news that a dead body was found lying near the auto, P.W.6, the brother-in-law of the deceased went and informed P.W.7 and came to the spot.In the meantime, P.W.1 Chelliah, Village Assistant saw the dead body in the evening with multiple injuries and identified the dead body as that of Sakthipandian.He then went to Bazaar Police Station and gave Ex.P.8 is the printed First Information Report.f) P.W.14 Kumar, Inspector of Police, in charge of the police station, came to the scene at 6.45 p.m. He received the copy of the F.I.R. He prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P.3 rough sketch.He recovered M.O.1 bloodstained earth, M.O.2 sample earth and other things available in the scene of occurrence.He also recovered M.O.5 auto.On the requisition given by P.W.14, P.W.17 Finger Print Expert came and taken the finger prints available in the auto.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Murugesan (A1) and Sankar (A2) were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.P.7 complaint to P.W.11 Sub inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 334/1997 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.He also took the finger prints of the deceased.P.11 is the inquest report.The body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital to conduct post-mortem.g) P.W.10 Dr. Rathinam conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 25.12.1997 at 11.30 a.m., and he noticed that the deceased had sustained 24 stab injuries of various dimensions.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury to lung, trachea and bleeding due to multiple injuries.P.6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.h) During the course of inquest, P.W.14 came to know about the involvement of A1 to A6 in the case.Therefore, he took steps to arrest the accused.On his confession, he recovered M.O.9 aruval.After arrest, finger-prints were taken from the accused and the same were sent to P.W.17 Finger Print Expert to compare the finger prints taken from the auto.P.W.15 took up further investigation on 31.12.1997 and examined witnesses.i) P.W.16 another Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 342, 302 and 149 I.P.C.j) After framing appropriate charges, the trial Court went on with the trial.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.29 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked.Through P.W.17, the reports of the Finger Print Expert viz., Ex.k) When the appellants/accused 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime.l) After considering the materials on record,though the trial Court acquitted A3 to A6 in respect of all the charges, convicted A1 and A2, the appellants herein only for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment.With reference to the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also gone through the records.On perusal of the entire records, it is seen that most of the witnesses turned hostile.Since no other evidence available with reference to the actual occurrence and also in regard to the overt acts attributed to each of the accused, the trial Court was constrained to acquit all the accused in respect of the main charge under Section 302 I.P.C. However, the trial Court, merely on the basis of the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17, convicted A1 and A2 alone for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.On analysing the materials available on record, we are to conclude that the evidence of P.W.6, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused 1 to 3 is not credible and as such, the same cannot be acted upon to connect the appellants with the crime in question.The reasons for the above conclusion are the following.It is the specific case of the prosecution that earlier, there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased on so many occasions.According to P.W.6, A1 engaged the same auto for some other purpose, but did not make payment of hire charges.With reference to that, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.It is further stated by P.W.6 that on the eve of Thevar Guru Pooja, the deceased fitted the mike set in the van and displayed songs in praise of Thevar and this was objected to by all the accused and due to this also, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Apart from that, when Shanmugiah Pandian, the Vice-President of Thevar Youth Forum was arrested by the police, the deceased pasted posters, opposing the act of the police in arresting Shanmugiah Pandian and in protest, the accused came and picked up quarrel with the deceased.In the light of the the materials with reference to enmity between these two groups, the evidence of P.W.6 that A1 to A3 came on that day at about 3.00 p.m. and engaged the auto of the deceased to go to Lanthai, which is situate 12 kms away from the auto stand, is not believable.When there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, with reference to the non payment of hire charges, it is quite artificial to say that the deceased readily agreed to take the accused 1 to 3 to go to Lanthai to hand over the TV to the Panchayat Union.However, he had not chosen to inform P.W.7 that at about 3.00 p.m. accused 1 to 3 engaged the deceased auto to go to Lanthai and thereafter, the deceased did not turn up.His evidence can be analysed from yet another angle.According to P.W.7, one Pandian was present at the scene of occurrence, when she went to the spot.She also specifically stated that he was examined by the police.On a perusal of Exs.P.11 inquest report, it is noticed that it has been specifically written in Col. No. 4 that the last person who saw the deceased alive is one Pandian.Despite this reference about Pandian, P.W.14 would state that Pandian was not examined during the course of inquest.Unfortunately, P.W.6 has not stated anything about the presence of Pandian in his evidence.When P.W.7 would specifically admit that the said Pandian, who had last seen the deceased alive, was available at the scene and he was examined by the police, it is not known as to why P.W.14 had failed to state that Pandian was not available and so, he was not examined.Only thereafter, the Finger Print Expert was examined as P.W.17, through whom all these documents viz., Exs.P.24 to P.29 were marked.It is the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were compelled to give their finger prints.Though it is stated by P.W.17 that he went to the spot on 24.12.1997 itself and took the chance finger prints found on the auto, there is no reason as to why he had not sent the final reports such as Exs.P.24 to P.29 immediately either to the Court or to the Police Officer.As a matter of fact, all these documents have been prepared even according to P.W.17 only after getting the summons from the Court.It is the specific evidence of P.W.17 that even on 24.12.1997, he was present at the scene of occurrence.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code