P.N. PRAKASH, J.

1. This case is a fall out of cable TV turf war.

2. Inasmuch as all the instant criminal appeals arise from one judgment, viz., judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C. No.403 of 2010, the same are considered and decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to these criminal appeals were briefly these.

3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Gandhi was into cable TV business and had a running feud with his competitors, viz., A1 to A6, in pursuance of which, the latter conspired and eliminated the former on 16.12.2005 around 9.30 p.m. when he was in his office in the second floor at Door No.20/42, Kakkan Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madurai, by engaging hirelings, two of whom, belaboured him with deadly weapons, which incident was allegedly witnessed by Saravanan (P.W.1), brother of Gandhi, Suresh (P.W.2), Saravanan (P.W.3), Kirubakaran (P.W.4), Dhanapandiaraja (P.W.5) and Nagarathinam (P.W.6).

3.2 On the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Saravanan (P.W.1) , K. Venugopal, (not examined), Sub Inspector of Police, Mathichiyam Police Station, registered a case in Cr. No.2539 of 2005 on 16.12.2005 at 22.00 hrs. under Section 302 IPC against unnamed, but, identifiable accused and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.50), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 17.12.2005 at 0.15 hrs. (12.15 a.m.), as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.

3.3 The investigation of the case was taken over by Gnanavel (P.W.26), Inspector of Police, Mathichiyam Police Station, who went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, Raja David (P.W.18) and Ravi (not examined), prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.51) and rough sketch (Ex.P.52). He requisitioned the services of Janakiraman (P.W.23), forensic expert, to assist him in gathering the clue materials from the place of occurrence. He had the scene of occurrence photographed by Srinivasan (P.W.21). From the place of occurrence, he seized pieces of tiles, with and without blood stains, viz., M.Os.7 and 8 respectively under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.15). He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.53). He despatched the body to the Government Hospital, Madurai for post-mortem, where, Dr. K. Meiazhagan (P.W.20) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate (Exs.P.41 and 42). Dr. K. Meiazhagan (P.W.20), in his evidence as well in the post-mortem report, has noted 24 cut injuries from head to toe on the body of the deceased and has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of “shock and hemorrhage due to injuries 1 to 9 and their corresponding internal injuries and cumulative effect of all the other injuries”.

3.4 At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to a disquieting fact in the trial of this case. The prosecution have summoned and examined Mahalakshmi (P.W.22) Scientific Assistant, Grade-I from the Forensic Science Department for proving the Biology Report (Ex.P.46) and Serology Report (Ex.P.47), notwithstanding a clear indication in the footnote therein that the said two reports can be used as evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C., as they have been issued under the hand and seal of the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai. This is not the first occasion that this Court is coming across this practice of summoning Serologist for marking Serology Report as an exhibit. Section 293 Cr.P.C. clearly states that a report of the Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government can be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. Such experts can be summoned under Section 293(2) Cr.P.C. on the special orders of the Court and not as a matter of routine, f