In a murder case, the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused and the need for circumstantial evidence to lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone caused the murder are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.

The facts led the accused for conviction at the hands of the I Additional Sessions Court, which has been challenged before this Court in this appeal are as follows.

a) There was originally seven accused cited in the First Information Report. The accused A3 Madesh and A7 Kuppan died even before the commencement of the trial before the Sessions Court. A5, Kandhan died during the course of the trial. All the remaining accused who had faced the trial were found guilty under Sections 302, 302 read with 149, 148, 324, 324 read with 149, 326 of I.P.C. A1 to A4 who had faced the trial were convicted and sentenced under the above said provisions of law to undergo Life Imprisonment, one year Rigourous Imprisonment and 2 years Rigourous Imprisonment, etc.,

b) It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of the deceased, Palani eloped with one Palanisamy, who is the son of the aunt of A1 and A2. Since the deceased and his brothers P.Ws.1 and 2 suspected that the accused persons are giving asylum to the said palanisamy and the daughter of the deceased. On the date of occurrence i.e., on 07.08.1991. On hearing some noise from one Sengodan, thinking that it is the quarrel in respect of the above said love affair, the deceased and his brothers P.W.1 and 2 rushed to the said Sengodan's house. On their way , the accused persons (7 persons) came in the opposite direction and A1, A2 and one Madheswaran (deceased accused) attacked the deceased Palani with knife on his chest and head. A1 attacked P.W.1 and A3 attacked P.W.2 with knives causing grievous injuries on them. After committing the crime, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were taken to the Hospital, wherein P.W.1 preferred the complaint-Ex.P.1 to P.W.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police. The deceased Palani was taken to Erode Government Hospital. From there, he was referred to Coimbatore Government Hospital, where he died on 09.08.1991.

c) Thereafter, P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police has altered the charge from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C. The Inspector of Police, Elango had taken up further investigation. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2, Mahazar and had drawn a rough sketch. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest and arranged for recording dying declaration, on 08.08.1991 itself. The accused was arrested and their confession statements were recorded. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 10.04.1992. According to P.W.3, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiru Elongavan-the Inspector of Police who had conducted investigation is also now no more.

d) The case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sangagiri under PRC No.8/92. On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the case is triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 148, 302, 324, 302 read with 149, 326 and 323 I.P.C. against the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.

e) Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Ex.Ps.1 to 31 and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the complicity with the crime.

f) After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted A1 to A4 under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149, 324, 326 and 323 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and various other sentences as indicated above. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal.

2. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sent