1. The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.4.2003 in S.C.No.42 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur, whereby the appellants-A.1 to A.3, were convicted for the offence under Section 436 IPC and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, each to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) Prior to the occurrence, A.2 Velmurugan attempted to outrage the modesty of one Kayalvizhi, who is the relative of P.W.2 Narayanasamy. Since the father and the brother of Kayalvizhi were abroad, P.Ws.1 and 2 were taking care of the family of Kayalvizhi.

(b) Since P.W.2 is a retired Headmaster, he condemned the activities of A.2. A.1 Palanivel and A.2 Velmurugan have given a Police complaint before Jayankondam Police Station, stating that during the Panchayat, P.W.1 Anandan assaulted A.1 and A.2, and the complaint was pending and so, due to enmity, they had a vengeance to murder P.W.2 by setting fire to the farm house situated on the land (fhl;Lf; bfhl;lif), and the said plan of murder was heard by P.W.7 Ponmudi.

(c) To exhibit the said object of murder, on 16.7.2000 at 9 p.m., when P.Ws.1 and 3 were in their house, they heard a call from their father that his farm house was under fire and immediately P.Ws.1 and 3 rushed to the place. At that time, P.Ws.6 and 7 intimated the fact that the accused set fire and left the place, which was witnessed by P.W.1 also. In the fire accident, nearly Rs.5,000/- worth materials were damaged.

(d) Then, P.W.1 went to the Police Station on 17.7.2000 at 1 p.m. and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 before P.W.4 Sub-Inspector of Police. He received the same and registered a case in Cr.No.79 of 2000 for the offence under Section 436 IPC and prepared FIR Ex.P-

4. He went to the place of occurrence and examined the witnesses and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W.1 and one Prakasah and seized M.Os.1 and 2 under Ex.P-3 mahazar. He drew rough sketch Ex.P-5.

(e) On 17.7.2000 at about 5 p.m., P.W.4 Sub-Inspector of Police arrested A.1 and remanded him to judicial custody. A.2 to A.4 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered before Court.

(f) P.W.5 Inspector of Police took up the matter for further investigation, verified the records and examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 436 IPC.

3. The trial Court framed necessary charge against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked and M.Os.1 and 2 were produced. The trial Court questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. posing incriminating evidence against them and they denied the same. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 436 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants-A.1 to A.3 would contend that there is a delay in preferring the complaint and there was previous enmity between the parties as A.1 and A.2 have given complaint against P.W.1, who wanted to escape from the clutches of law and hence, a false case has been foisted against the accused. There is a contradiction in the contents of the FIR, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the deposition of witnesses. P.W.1 is the son of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. Except the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the interested witnesses, no other evidence is available for implicating the accused in the commission of offence. The names of P.W.6 Valsamy and P.W.7 Ponmudi, who are the alleged eye-witnesses, have been incorporated in Ex.P-1 complaint and Ex.P-4 FIR and they have turned hostile. Even though P.W.2 was the Headmaster, he has not given any c