K. N. Mudaliyar, J.- These two appeals are filed by the two appellants (Karunakaran, the first accused and Jabamani Nadar alias Kanyakumari Comrade alias Ramu, the second accused) against their conviction for an offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death awarded against them. [After discussing the evidence and setting aside the conviction of A-2, Mudaliyar, J., continued:] 2. We confirm the conviction of the first accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death awarded against him. We do not find any circumstances constituting extenuation of the crime. On the contrary, there are the elements of aggravation of the crime of murder. It is true that both the murdered victim and the first accused were on deadly inimical terms. But that constitutes a double-edged weapon, and that is exactly the reason why the first accused participated in the murder of Viswanathan. But what time has he chosen? He chose his victim when he was slumbering quietly and peacefully on a bench before his cattle shed, in the summer weather of South Arcot District. The crime is dastardly in the extreme. He did not even alert the deceased and face his opponent in cutting him to death. Here was a sleeping man, unarmed and defenceless who became a victim to this murderous attack from the first accused. We consider that the sentence of death is the only appropriate sentence to be awarded against him. The appeal filed by the first accused (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1974) is accordingly dismissed. 3. Before parting with his case, we would like to observe that India is a land of freedom under law. Even the crimes of Naxalites must be legally proved before courts of law. We cannot treat or equate Naxalites as hardened criminals and hang them on the merest production of flimsy and fabricated evidence. Undoubtedly there is in this country functioning a vigilant and independent judiciary whose legal duty is to scrutinise every piece of evidence forged in proof of the guilt of the accused, before they can be found guilty of the offence with which they are charged, and convicted. It is sad-dening to notice that the Sub-Magistrate, Chidambaram, has not done his duty properly in this case. It is sad-dening to notice that the Sub-Magistrate, Chidambaram, has not done his duty properly in this case. A departmental enquiry must be conducted against his acts which constitute dereliction of duty, particularly in a case of such magnitude and complexity. His conduct, viewed in the light of the vigilant diligence of the other Sub-Magistrate, who was in additional charge, is really deserving of censure at our hands. The various labyrinthine infirmities that have been sought to be covered up by the glossy appearance of valid evidence have enjoined on us a duty to issue the following instructions for the guidance of the Magistrates (which may be embodied in the Manual of Instructions for the Guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State): 4. While hearing referred trials and criminal appeals, we have come across instances where there was inordinate delay in sending the complaint given to the police and the printed form first information report to the Sub-Magistrate. We make the following suggestions to ensure that the really guilty (legally proved to be guilty) may not escape the clutches of law and the really innocent may not be falsely implicated by the ingenuity of the prosecuting machinery. 5. In some instances we were not able to find out at what precise point of time on a particular day the complaint was made to the police, and the relevant first information report were received by the Sub-Magistrate, for they contained only the initials of the Sub-Magistrate, and the date. The importance of noting the exact time cannot be over-stated or overemphasised. We have also come across instances where we could not be sure whether the inquest report and the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest accompanying the inquest report had been sent to the Sub-Magistrate on the day when they purported to have been sent, since they did not contain the initials of the Sub-Magistrate with the date of the receipt of the same. In our note dated 28th March, 1974 we had stressed the importance of noting the time at which and the date on which these documents were received by the Sub-Magistrate, since the guilt of the accused or his innocence could be gauged, measured and determined unmistakably from certain documents received by the Courts in good time and we find that a Circular, R.O.C. No. 2272-A/74-F1 dated 20th June, 1974 was sent to all the Magistrates. In the instant case we had grave doubts whether the inquest report and the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest and said to have accompanied the inquest report were received by the Sub-Magistrate on a particular day, for the Magistrate had initialled the inquest report, but in the date seal which was affixed to the inquest report the date was written in ink. The statements of the witnesses recorded during the inquest, however, did not contain the initials of the Sub-Magistrate at all. There was a lurking and gnawing suspicion in our minds whether they were smuggled into the Court of the Sub-Magistrate belatedly and far later. We are therefore of the opinion that it is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub-Magistrate. The Station House Officer should record the time of the actual despatch of the various documents in the various registers, particularly, the statement recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, noting therein the time and date of the receipt of those documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Therefore, as the Manual of Instructions for the Guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State does not contain any instructions to the Magistrates in this regard, we suggest that the same may be brought up-to-date by incorporating in it the circulars which had been issued from time to time for the guidance of the Magistrates. The following are documents of special importance which, in our opinion, should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrates, and they should bear the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date of their receipt. 1. The original report or complaint under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The printed form of the first information report prepared on the basis of the said report or complaint. 3. Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest. 4 Memo. sent by the Station House Officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case-treatment. 5. Memo. 2. The printed form of the first information report prepared on the basis of the said report or complaint. 3. Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest. 4 Memo. sent by the Station House Officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case-treatment. 5. Memo. sent by the doctor to the police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death memo sent by the doctor to the police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries. 6. Observation mahazars for the recovery of material objects, search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act, etc. prepared in the course of the investigation. 7. The statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Form No. 91 accompanied by material objects. 6. By reason of certain peculiar and unsatisfactory features in this case we wanted to satisfy ourselves by going through the various entries in the general diary, the pocket diary of the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 23) and the despatch register. It is rather odd that there is no mention of the time of the despatch of Exhibit P-1 to the various authorities on 26/27th April, 1971. The prosecution did not place for our perusal the entries in the pocket diary of the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 23) on the simple ground that it was not available. It was further represented by the learned Public Prosecutor that the general diary for the relevant dates and certain other dates was not available, again on the simple ground that it was missing. We would like to stress the desirability and need for preserving the pocket diaries of the investigating officers, the entries in the general diaries, and the despatch book with more elaborate details, for at least five years. In the interests of justice, the preservation of these documents is essential and desirable.