in all the Appeals.II, Tirunelveli are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeals.The case of the prosecution is that PW2-Durgadevi and PW3-Nagarajan arethe children of the deceased by name Angammal and all of them have lived inVetrivinayagar Kovil Street, Vannarpettai.On 18.01.2006 at about 10.00 pm., theparents of PWs.2 and 3 have performed pooja so as to drive effect of evil eyeand due to that wranglings have happened in between the parents of PWs.2 and 3and first accused by name Karuppasamy.The complainant (PW1) and senior paternaluncle of PWs.2 and 3 have desisted the parents of PWs.2 and 3 and first accused.On 19.01.2006 the father of PWs.2 and 3 has gone out by using his motor cycle.On the same day, at about 12.30 pm., while the deceased has been standing infront of the house, PW2 has come from school due to her illness.On the sameday, PW3 has not attended school due to his illness.At that time all theaccused have come to the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and all of themhave indiscriminately attacked the deceased and subsequently an ambulance hascome from Sakthi hospital and PW1 has taken the deceased to the said hospitaland subsequently given the complaint (Ex.P7).On receipt of Ex.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that PWs.2 and3 namely Durgadevi and Nagarajan are the children of the deceased by nameAngammal and all of them have lived in Vetrivinayagar Kovil Street,Vannarpettai.Thecomplainant viz., PW1 and senior paternal uncle of PWs.2 and 3 have desistedthem.The doctor who admitted the deceased in Sakthi hospital has beenexamined as PW9 and his specific evidence is that on 19.01.2006 at about 12.55pm, the deceased has been brought to Sakthi hospital and he found the followinginjuries:1.Abdominal injury - stab wound 3 cm.2.Amputation right upper limb - Elbow level - no liable vital part3.Amputation left thumb.Criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against theconviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.II,Tirunelveli.!For Appellants ... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha (Crl.A.Nos.218 & 495/07)For Appellant ... Mr.S.P.Maharajan (Crl.A.No.396/08)^For Respondent ... Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian Addl.Public Prosecutor (All Appeals.) :COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM, J.) The conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions CaseNo.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track CourtNo.P7, PW8, the concerned Sub Inspector of Police hasregistered the same in Crime No.87 of 2006 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and307 of the Indian Penal Code and the printed copy of First Information Reporthas been marked as Ex.The Investigating Officer has taken up investigation, conductedinquest, arrested all the accused, recovered material objects and aftercompleting investigation laid a final report on the file of the JudicialMagistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli has issued summonses toall the accused and furnished copies of relevant documents under section 207 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after coming to a conclusion that theoffences alleged to have been committed by all the accused are triable bySessions Court, he committed the same to the Principal District and SessionsCourt, Tirunelveli and taken on file in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006 andsubsequently made over to the trial Court.The trial Court after considering the materials found on record hasframed first charge against all the accused under Section 341 of the IndianPenal Code, second charge against all of them under Section 302 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.Theaccused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 12 have been examined andExs.P1 to P20 and M.Os.1 to 4 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating material available inevidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.On the side ofthe accused, DW1 has been examined and Ex.D1 has been marked.The trial Court after perpending the available evidence on record hasfound all the accused guilty under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced each of them to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and alsoimposed a fine of Rs.500/- upon each of them with usual default clause.Theaccused have also been found guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fineof Rs.10,000/- upon each of them with usual default clause.Against theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused asappellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2008, the second accused asappellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2007 and third accused asappellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2007 on the file of this Court.On 19.01.2006 the father of PWs.2 and 3 has gone out.On the same day atabout 12.30 pm, while PWs.2 and 3 and their mother (deceased) are in theirhouse, all the accused have come with deadly weapons and hurled invectives byusing filthy words against the deceased and all of a sudden they attacked herindiscriminately and subsequently the complainant has taken the deceased toSakthi hospital by using an ambulance van and after some time she passed away.The entire complaint alleged to have been givenby PW1 has been marked as Ex.P7 by the Sub Inspector of Police, who registeredthe same in Crime No.87 of 2006 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 307 of theIndian Penal Code.As pointed out earlier, PW1 has not supported the case of theprosecution.The specific evidence given by PW2 is that the occurrence has takenplace on 19.01.2006 at about 12.30 pm., and prior to occurrence, she, herbrother (PW3), mother(deceased) and senior paternal uncle (PW4) are in theirhouse and at that time all the accused have come there by using an Auto withdeadly weapons and the first accused has hurled invectives against her mother(deceased) by using filthy words and all of them have attacked her mother andsubsequently PW1 has taken her mother to Sakthi hospital through an ambulancevan.As stated earlier, PW3, Nagarajan is the youngerbrother of PW2 and PW4, Chinnadurai is the senior paternal uncle of PWs.2 and 3.PWs.3 and 4 have categorically stated in their evidence that on 19.01.2006 atabout 12.30 pm., all the accused have come to the place of occurrence by usingan Auto and suddenly they attacked the deceased by using deadly weapons.The intimation given to police has been marked as Ex.P9 and AccidentRegister has been marked as Ex.The doctor who conducted necropsy has also been examined as PW10 andhe found the following injuries:(1) Abrasions back of left elbow 4x2cm;(L) knee 4x2 cm; (2) Clean-cut injury, base of left thumb x entire circumstance, the distalportion of the finger is missing.(3)Vertical incised wound (L) breast, above the nipple, 7x.5x.5 cm.(4)Two transverse incised wounds outer aspect of upper part of rightthigh; each 4x.5x.5;(5)R upper limb in hospital bandage, on removal of bandage, beveled cutinjury towards the elbow, 20x8 cm x bone deep back of right forearm & elbow; theunderlying muscles, vessels and both bones clean cut.(6)Transverse incised wound R subcostal region, 5x2 cm.X peritonealcavity depth; the outer end is sharp and the inner end is blunt.The postmortem certificate given by PW10 has been marked as Ex.Further PW10has opined that "the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to heavy cut injury in the right forearm."The trial Court after considering the evidence given by PWs.2 to 4, 9and 10 and other connected witnesses has invited conviction and sentence againstall the accused as stated supra.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have uniformlycontended that the specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence hastaken place at about 12.30 pm., on 19.01.2006 and the First Information Reporthas been given on 2.30 pm., on the same day and further PW9 has not specificallystated the name of the person(s) who brought the deceased to Sakthi hospital andon the date of occurrence, PWs.2 and 3 are not in their house and in short, theyare not eye witnesses and even in Ex.P7, the complaint, presence of PW4 has notbeen stated.Likewise, in the inquest report (Ex.P18) presence of PW1 alone hasbeen stated and presence of PWs.2 to 4 have not at all been stated and further,from the evidence of PW2 the Court can easily discern that after the attacksmade by the accused on the person of the deceased she has fallen down and oneKanaga has given water to her.But she has not been examined.Further, PW9has categorically admitted in his evidence that he has given intimation to thepolice under Ex.P9 at about 12.55 pm., But he has been examined by theInvestigating Officer on the same day at about 1.00 pm., Further Ex.P7 has beensent to Court very belatedly without proper explanation and the trial Courtwithout considering the fact that the entire case of the prosecution bristleswith vital infirmities, has erroneously invited conviction and sentence againstall the accused under Sections 341, and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code andtherefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against all theaccused are liable to be set aside.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contendedthat in the instant case even though the complainant (PW1) has become a hostilewitness, the prosecution has clearly established the alleged guilt of theaccused punishable under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code byway of examining PWs.2 to 4 and in fact their evidence has been clearlycorroborated by medical evidence by way of examining PWs.9 and 10 and furtherthe prosecution has given clear explanation for not seizing bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence and further mere delay in sendingthe First Information to Court is not fatal to the case of the prosecution andthe trail Court after considering the overwhelming evidence available on record,has rightly invited conviction and sentence against all the accused underSections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are not liable to beinterfered with.The first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellants isthat the specific evidence given by PW9 is that he admitted the deceased inSakthi hospital at 12.55 pm., and immediately he has given intimation to policestation and he has been examined by the concerned Inspector of Police on thesame day by 1.00 o' clock, whereas, Ex.P7 has been registered on the same day atabout 2.30 pm.It is seen from the evidence given by PW9 that he admitted thedeceased on 19.01.2006 at about 12.55 pm., Further he deposed to the effect thatimmediately he has given intimation to the concerned police and the concernedInspector of Police has examined him at 1.00 pm., It is an admitted fact thatEx.P7, complaint has been registered on 19.01.2006 at about 2.30 pm.Since Ex.P7has been registered on 19.01.2006 at about 2.30 pm.it is highly impossible onthe part of the Investigating Officer (PW12) to examine PW9 on 19.01.2006 atabout 1.00 o' clock.Therefore, the evidence given by PW9 to that aspect isnothing but a slip of tongue and the same cannot be given effect to.FurtherPW12 has clearly stated in his evidence that he visited hospital on the same dayat about 3.30 pm and examined PW9 and other connected witnesses.Therefore, thefirst and foremost contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused isof no use.The second/vital attack made on the side of the appellants/accused isthat in the instant case, PWs.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and bothof them are school going children and the occurrence has taken place on19.01.2006 at about 12.30 pm., and since both of them are school going children,definitely they would not have seen the occurrence and further in the inquestreport, presence of PW1 has not been stated and in Ex.P7, complaint presence ofPW4 has not been stated and therefore, the prosecution has virtually failed toadduce proper evidence with regard to alleged occurrence and the trial Court hasfailed to look into the same.As stated earlier, PWs.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased andPW4 is their senior paternal uncle.In the evidence given by PW2 it has beenclearly stated that on 19.01.2006 morning she attended school.But due toillness, she left the school and arrived home.The evidence of PW3 is that dueto illness on 19.01.2006 he has not attended school.Apart fromthe evidence given by DW1, on the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked.D1 is a xerox copy of attendance register, wherein it has been clearly statedthat on 19.01.2006, PW2 has been absent.At this juncture, a faint attempt hasbeen made on the side of the appellants/accused to the effect that in Ex.It is an admitted factthat Ex.D1 is a document marked on the side of the appellants/accused.Therefore, viewing from any angle, thesecond/vital attack made on the side of the appellants/accused is sans merit.The third attack made on the side of the appellants/accused is that inEx.likewise, in Ex.P7 complaint, presence of PW4 is not foundplace.For the purpose of deciding the above aspects put forth on the side ofthe appellants/accused, it is very much essential to rely upon the recisionreported in (2011)6 Supreme Court Cases 288 [Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.Stateof Uttar Pradesh], wherein at paragraph - 10 it is observed as follows:The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding theapparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidentalor by some machinery, etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all thedetails of the overt acts in the inquest report.Evidence of eyewitnesses cannotbe discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at theearliest point of time.The inquest report cannot be treated as substantiveevidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest."Even from a cursory look of the decision referred to supra, it iseasily discernible to the effect that mere non-mentioning of names of witnessesin an inquest report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and furtherinquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence so as to believe the caseof the prosecution and further it is also equally a settled principle of lawthat mere non-mentioning of names of witnesses in the complaint would notmilitate the case of the prosecution and further it is an archaic principle oflaw that in the First Information Report all details of alleged overtacts by theconcerned accused and all details of persons who witnessed the occurrence neednot be minutely stated.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the third attack madeon the side of the appellants/accused goes out without merit.The fourth contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that the specific evidence given by PW2 is that after attacks alleged to havebeen made by all the accused on the person of the deceased, she has fallen downand one Kanaga has given water to her.But the prosecution has not chosen toexamine her and therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with genuinecase and the trial Court has failed to look into the said aspect.It is seen from the evidence given by PW2 to the effect that afterattacks alleged to have been made by all the accused, the deceased has fallendown and immediately one Kanaga has given water to her.But as rightly pointedout on the side of the appellants/accused, the said Kanaga has not been examinedas one of the prosecution witnesses and further no explanation has been givenwith regard to her non-examination.It has already been pointed out that PWs.2 to 4 have given cogent andtrustworthy evidence so as to prove the alleged guilt of the accused punishableunder Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Since in the instantcase the prosecution has adduced evidence in plenitude with regard to motive anddetails of attacks alleged to have been made by all the accused, mere non-examination of the said Kanaga would not affect the case of the prosecution.In Ex.P2 it has been clearly stated that PW12 has reachedthe place of occurrence at about 3.30 pm and before his arrival, the place ofoccurrence has been bestrown and also daubed by using dung water.Since in Ex.It has already been pointed out that PW12, Investigating Officer hasreached the place of occurrence on 19.01.2006 at about 3.30 pm., and in Ex.Therefore, the said contention put forth on the side of theappellants/accused is also sans merit.The seventh contention put forth on the side of theappellants/accused is to the effect that a vital discrepancy has been inexistence with regard to injuries sustained by the deceased betwixt the evidenceof PWs.9 and 10 and the trial Court has failed to look into the same.As pointed out earlier, PW9 who admitted the deceased initially inSakthi hospital has found three injuries on her person.But PW10, the doctor whoconducted autopsy has found six injuries.Simply because a mere discrepancy withregard to number of injuries sustained by the deceased is in existence inbetween the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, the Court cannot reject or eschew theconsistent and cogent evidence given by PWs.2 and 3 for disbelieving the versionof the prosecution.In the instant case, PWs.2 to 4 have cogently and consistently statedin their evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence all the accusedhave attacked the deceased by using deadly weapons indiscriminately.The eighth contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that Ex.Any defect in the preparation of the inquestreport by the investigating officer cannot lead to an inference that the FIR wasnot registered at the alleged time.The FIR contains all the essential featuresof the prosecution's case including names of eyewitnesses, time and place ofincident, names of the victim, motive, name of the accused persons, weapons intheir hands and manner of assault.Thus, all these things lend a seal ofassurance not only to the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of the incident,but also to the participation of the appellants in the crime.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the saidcontention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused are not havingattractive force.The trial Court after considering the overwhelming evidence availablein the present case, has rightly invited conviction and sentence against all theappellants/accused under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and legal premise, thisCourt has not found any acceptable force in the contentions put forth on theside of the appellants/accused and altogether the present Criminal Appeals areliable to be dismissed.In fine, these Criminal Appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly aredismissed.The conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions CaseNo.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track CourtNo.1.The Additional District and Sessions Court/ Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City,3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code