JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in in S.C.No.11 of 2016, dated 27.08.2021 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, thereby acquitting the respondents 1 to 4 from the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused had previous enmity due to their property dispute. On 19.07.2014 at about 11.40 hours, the accused were allegedly present on the land belonging to the deceased. At that time, they wrongfully trespassed into the said land and abused the deceased in filthy language. However, the deceased ignored them and while the deceased was walking away, the first accused is alleged to have attacked him with a knife, inflicting injuries. The other accused are alleged to have joined in the assault and caused further injuries to the deceased. Therefore, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died.

3. Based on the complaint, the fifth respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.108 of 2014 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and thereafter, altered into Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P20. The prosecution had produced Materials Objects M.O.1 to M.O.5. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 were marked before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the first accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 of IPC and the accused Nos.2 to 4 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant as appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.Ws. 1 to 7 have categorically deposed regarding the motive for the occurrence. In fact, P.Ws.5 to 7, who are the injured eye-witnesses, have clearly established the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. According to them, the first accused allegedly stabbed the deceased on the left side of the stomach with M.O.1, which was recovered from the first accused based on his confession statement. The confession statement was recorded as Ex.P7. The injuries found in the dead body were also corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The cause of death stated in the postmortem was that the stab injury sustained by the deceased on his left side stomach. Further, they had also deposed about the specific overtact against the accused Nos.2 to 4 and they assaulted P.Ws.5 to 7 herein and they sustained simple injuries. Therefore, they did not take any treatment. Even then, the trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and acquitted the accused from all the charges, that too, on the ground of small contradictions and discrepancies are not fatal to the case of the prosecution when the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 categorically deposed about the occurrence and also had deposed about the specific overtact of all the accused persons. Further, the trial Court concluded that P.W.18 had suppressed the material facts such as the injuries sustained by the accused, which are the origin and genesis of the occurrence. In fact, for the injuries sustained by the accused, a case was registered as against some of the accused in Cr.No.107 of 2014. The investigating officer found that both parties were aggressors and filed a final report. The trial Court conducted simultaneous trial and acquitted the accused in both cases. However, the trial Court concluded that the investigating officer did not follow the Police Standing Order under Order 588-A while findi