Courts require credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction in criminal conspiracy cases.

1. The matter is heard through " Video Conference".

2. The convicted accused are the appellants herein.

3. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11. 15. 2015 passed in S. C. No. 155/2014 on the filed of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, convicting the appellants and sentenced the first appellant to undergo 4 years R. I under S.120(B) r/w 460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- each in default 6 months R. I, to undergo 4 years under S.120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in dafault to undergo 6 months R. I, sentencing the second appellant to undergo 4 years R. I., under S.120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default to undergo 6 months R. I., and sentenced the 3rd appellant to undergo 4 years R. I., under S.120(B) r/w 460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- each in default 6 months R. I., to undergo 4 years under S.326 r/w 114 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R. I.

4. The respondent filed the charge sheet against the appellants for an alleged offence under S.120(b), S.506(i), S.109 r/w 326, 460 IPC which was taken on file in S. C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District on the allegations that on 09. 10. 2013 at about 11. 00 pm., the appellants 2 and 3 conspired together with the 1st appellant and entered the house of the de facto complainant namely Mohan and the second appellant assaulted him with Aral and caused grievous injuries on his head, while the third appellant assisted the second appellant. After that, the first appellant came there and admitted the de facto complainant into the Hospital and thereby committed the offence.

5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P. W. 8 and Exs. Pl to P14 were marked and MO. l was marked. On behalf of the defence, no documents or evidence has been marked.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, has convicted the accused and awarded the sentence as stated supra.

7. Mr. I. C. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that (a). P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are husband and wife are improved their version, after complaint, so as to falsely convicted the accused, (b). P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not reliable. Since the versions are a self - contradictory, as per the own version given in the complaint with that their evidence before the Court, (c). There is no independent eye witness to the occurrence as projected by the prosecution, (d). No other material is placed before the Court to connect the accused in the crime, (e). Earlier version given by P.W.1 (injured) given to the Government Doctors, Sathyamangalam as well as the Doctor, at Coimbatore as well as Ex.P1 complaint, it is unnamed and unknown accused. The complaint was given on 20.10.2013 and further statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 21.10.2013 and further relevant statement was recorded on 27. 10. 2013.

8. In all three circumstances, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 have whispered the names of the accused. Thereafter, under the guise of getting the further statement under S.161(3) of Cr.P.C., the investigation officer has introduced Al, A2 and A3, as an accused. Due to previous enmity between the parties, they have been falsely implicated.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the scene of the crime is inside the house and hence, no independent witness would be examined, in view of the occurrence taken inside the house. Both, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have assigned the reason for not mentioning the