J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)

This Criminal Appeal had been filed as being aggrieved against the conviction and sentence imposed as against them by order of the principal Sessions Judge, Vellore dated 09.03.2018. The appellants herein have been arrayed as accused 1 to 6 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code.

2.A Final Report against the accused was filed under Sections 147, 148,

294(b), 323, 324 & 302 r/w149 of I.P.C.

3.The accused 1 to 6 are the residents of Pudhumai Colony. The accused 1,

3.The accused 1 to 6 are the residents of Pudhumai Colony. The accused 1, st

1 accused. That on 12.03.2016 at about 9.00 P.M., near Ambedkar Statue at Unai Pallathur Road, Anaicut, the accused 1 to 5 had voluntarily picked up a quarrel with one Kutty Murugan @ Vijayakumar cousin brother of the victim. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 Murugan had interfered and pacified them. Due to which, the accused 1 to 5 had developed an enmity.

4.On 13.03.2016 at about 8.15 P.M. at the same place, the appellants/accused

1 to 6, on seeing the defacto complainant/P.W.1 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons with a common object of committing murder had abused P.W.1. Murugan. Velu, the victim who is also the brother of P.W.1 and Velu's wife who was examined as P.W.5 intervened. All the appellants/accused had abused them and attacked the victim. The first appellant/A1 had stabbed the victim with a knife on his left abdomen and the third appellant/A3 stabbed the victim on his left ear with a knife and the fifth appellant/A5 had attacked the victim with a ladle. The victim had died due to shock and hemorrhage sustained by multiple injuries. P.W.1 & P.W.5 were also injured in the incident. Hence the charge.

5.For better appreciation, the offences against which they were charged are tabulated hereunder together with the punishment that had been imposed as against them.

against them.

6.Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, marked 29 exhibits and 8

materials objects. Of the 14 witnesses examined, P.W.1 to P.W.7 spoke about the incident. P.W.8 - Mahazar witness, P.W.9 - the Doctor who conducted the postmortem, P.W.10. - the Village Administrative Officer who was present at the time of the arrest of the accused, P.W.11 - the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded 164 statements, P.W.12. – the Special Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the F.I.R, P.W.13 – the Scientific Officer (Forensic) & PW.14 – the

Inspector/ Investigation Officer respectively. It is to be noted that P.W.1 to P.W.8

are relatives to the deceased.

7.Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent assisted by

Mr.M.Sylvester John.

8.Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset would contend that the entire case of the prosecution had been built upon to rope in all the accused. He would submit that even according to the F.I.R as well as the statement of the alleged witnesses, the incident had occurred at about 8.15 P.M. on 13.03.2016. But, however, an F.I.R seems to have been registered only on 14.03.2016 at about 03.30 hours. He would also contend that there is a correction in the F.I.R with regard to the time in which the F.I.R had been registered. According to him, the F.I.R had been registered originally at

07.30 hours but had been modified by overwriting the same as 03.30 hours. He would also draw the attention of this Court to Ex.P1, the written complaint given by the defacto complainant who had been examined as P.W.1. Even in the said complaint, there is an alteration as regards to the time in which the defacto complainant/P.W.1 had visited the Police Station to lodge a complaint. Therefore, he would contend that the F.I.R itself had been fabricated and had been brought into existence long after the occurrence and the same had be