Suppression of vital facts and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case can create doubt and lead to the acquittal of the accused.

S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2013 are the accused 2 and 3 in S.C. No. 124 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Sessions Court, Cuddalore. By judgment, dated 06.04.2013, the trial Court convicted these two appellants/accused 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, they have come up with Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2013.

2. In the above case, including the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2013, there were totally six accused. The trial Court framed as many as six charges against all the six accused, as detailed below :

Sl. No.	Accused	Section of law
1	A.1	294 (B), 148, 307 & 302 r/w 149 IPC
2	A.2	294 (B), 148, 302 & 307 r/w 149 IPC
3	A.3	294 (B), 148, 302 & 307 r/w 149 IPC
4	A.4	294 (B), 148, 302 & 307 r/w 149 IPC
5	A.5	294 (B), 148, 307 & 302 r/w 149 IPC
6	A.6	294 (B), 148, 307 & 302 r/w 149 IPC

3. The trial Court acquitted accused 1, 4, 5 and 6 of all the charges and also acquitted accused 2 and 3 of all the charges except the charge under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said acquittal, the wife of the deceased filed Criminal Revision Case No. 829 of 2013 and when the said Criminal Revision Case came up before this Bench for hearing, we noticed that the said revision was not maintainable, in view of the proviso added to Section 372 Cr.P.C., by means of an amendment, which came into force with effect from 31.12.2009. Therefore, this Bench directed the Registry to convert the said Revision into a Criminal Appeal. The leave to appeal petition filed by the revision petitioner was also allowed. That is how, the Criminal Revision Case No. 829 of 2013 has been converted into a Criminal Appeal and the same has been numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2016. Thus, the Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2013 filed by the accused 2 and 3 against conviction and the Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2016 filed by the wife of the deceased against acquittal are before us for disposal.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

4.1. The deceased in this case was one Mr. Ayyappan. P.W.1 is his wife. They were residing at Sedapalayam village. In the local body election, held a few months before the occurrence, the deceased contested for the post of Ward Member. The first accused contested against him. The accused 2 to 6 supported the first accused in the said election. Ultimately, the deceased won the election, defeating the first accused. On account of the said win, the accused 1 to 6 had developed enmity against the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.

4.2. A few months before the said election, the brother-in-law of the deceased, by name, Senthilkumar (P.W.3), had paid money to the third accused for supplying labourers, for cutting sugarcane. The third accused received the amount, but he did not send the workers. P.W.3 was demanding the return of the said amount from the third accused. On 12.11.2011, around 12.00 Noon, the third accused informed P.W.3 that money was ready with him and he wanted P.W.3 to come and collect it. Accordingly, P.W.3 went to the house of the third accused, but, till 03.00 p.m., the third accused did not pay the money, as promised. This resulted in a quarrel. The other accused gathered there. All the six accused were armed with iron pipes. On seeing the commotion, P.W.1, her father-in-law, and the deceased went to the house of A-3. By that time, all had come in front of the house of A-4. On reaching the said place, the deceased questioned the third accused as to why he was refusing to pay the amount and as to why all were armed with weapons and surrounding P.W.3. Immedi