Credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence are crucial for establishing guilt in criminal cases. The interpretation of essential elements of an offense determines the applicability of charges and potential acquittal.

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The two appellants in this appeal have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, appellant 1 of an offence punishable under Section 201, Penal Code, and appellant 2 of murder. Appellant 1 received a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment while appellant 2 was sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302, Penal Code. The case arose out of the discovery of the dead body of one Ramaswami Thevan, a bachelor of about 23 years in the early morning of 8th October in the Itteri near the field belonging to witness Royappa Goundan. Ho reported the discovery of the dead body which had numerous injuries to the village Munsif who reported the matter to the police and the Magistrate. The inquest was held on Sunday night 8th October and the only eye-witness examined at the inquest was not examined as a witness for the prosecution.

2. The next day however during the investigation the Sub-Inspector was able 1,0 got the evidence of two eye-witnesses namely, Kanda Yannan and Muthu Kumaraswami Thevan, P.Ws. 9 and 7 respectively, according to whom appellant 2 was the person who actually inflicted the fatal injury with an aruval on the deceased with the assistance of the other appellant. A third eye-witness, viz., P.W. 10, was examined by the police on 13th October and the remaining eye-witness examined in the case, viz., P.W. 8, was examined by the police on 23rd October as he was a strolling actor without any fixed abode. It would appear that several other eyewitnesses had been examined by the police during the investigation, but they were not examined for the prosecution on the ground that they had either been won over or become hostile.

3. The case against the appellants rests almost entirely on the evidence of these four eye-witnesses P.Ws. 7 to 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard them says that he believes their evidence in view of their demeanour in the witness-box and especially their story that it was appellant 2 who caused the fatal wound to the deceased. As regards P.W. 10 however the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to mention or to take into account the fact that while he now poses as an eyewitness of the actual stabbing he appears to have told the police when he was examined during their investigation that he only heard of it and did not see. This must necessarily detract very seriously from the value of his evidence, and I am not therefore prepared to attach any weight to the evidence of P.W. 10 and his evidence must really be excluded from consideration.

4. As regards the other three eye-witnesses there can be no doubt in my opinion that they must have been present at the time and they must have been actual eye-witnesses. There is no particular reason why they should give false evidence against either of the appellants, and I see no reason to differ from the learned Additional Sessions Judges view as regards the value to be attached to their testimony. There is nothing inherently improbable in their evidence; on the other hand, their evidence is corroborated by the discoveries made by the police after the investigation had begun. All the three eyewitnesses P. Ws. 7, 8 and 9 swear that they saw appellant 2 cutting the deceased on the right arm and on the right side of the chest with an aruval which he had in his hand just after appellant 1 had bent the head of the deceased down. They also state that the two appellants tied the deceased with a rope and. Began to drag him away saying that he was going to be taken to the Village Munsif.

5. As a matter of fact the dead body was found in a place about two miles from the scents of occurrence. Both the appellants attribute the evidence against thorn to enmity and faction. According to thorn neither of them was present in bhajana party during whose peregrinations the occurrence took place. It appears to be true that there had been some factions between two persons in the village, viz., Arunachala Thevan a