Judgment: The appellants 1 to 13 who were arrayed as accused 1 to 13 before the trial Court have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of the Court of Session, West Thajavur Division, Thanjavur in S.C.No. 4 of 1974 on his file convicting all the appellants under various charges and sentencing them to varying terms of imprisonment thereunder. For the sake of convenience the appellants have been referred to as accused in the order as mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. A-5 and A-7 were charged under section 148, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 1; A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-8 to A-13 under sectionl47, Indian Penal Code under charge No. 2; A-1 under section 302, Indian Penal Code under charge No. 3, A-2 under section 302 read with 34,Indian Penal Code, under Charge No. 4; A-5 under section 326, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 5; A-4 and A-6 under section 325, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 6; A-1 to 3, A-7 to A-13 under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 7; A-3 under section 325, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 8; A-7 under section 324, Indian Penal Code under charge No. 9; A-6 under section 323, Indian Penal Code under charge No.10; A-1 under section 323, Indian Penal Code under Charge No. 11; A-8 to A-10 under section 323,Indian Penal Code under charge No. 12; A-11 under section 323, Indian Penal Code under charge No. 13; and A-12 and A-l3 under section 323, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 14; The learned Judge while convicting them convicted A-1 under charge numbers 2, 3 and 11 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 147, Indian Penal Code, under charge No. 2 and rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code (not under section 302, Indian Penal Code), under charge No. 3 and no separate sentence was awarded under section 323, Indian Penal Code under charge No. 11. A-2 was convicted under charge numbers 2 and 4 (under section 325, Indian Penal Code, but not under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for six months and one year respectively. A-2 was convicted under charge numbers 2 and 4 (under section 325, Indian Penal Code, but not under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for six months and one year respectively. A-3 was convicted under charge numbers 2 and 8 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count A-4 was convicted under charge numbers 2 and 6 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. A-5 was convicted under charge numbers 1 and 5 (under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and not under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under charge No.1 and no separate sentence was awarded under charge No. 5. A-6 was convicted under charge No. 2 and released on admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, but she was acquitted under charge numbers 6 and 10. A-7 was convicted under charge numbers 1 and 9, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under charge No.1 and no separate sentence was awarded under charge No. 9. A-8 to A-13 were convicted under charge No. 2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each but no separate sentence was awarded under charge Nos. 12, 13 and 14. It is also directed by the trial Court that the order of sentence passed against each of the accused shall run concurrently and out of the fine, if collected a sum of Rs. 300 will be paid to P.W.1 and P.W.5. [After narrating the prosecution case and discussing the evidence His Lordship proceeded:] 2. Mr. Natarajan, has vehemently urged that the first information report of this case registered in Crime No. 74 of 1973 was received by the Magistrate only at 9 a.m., on 11th June, 1973 as seen from the endorsement made by the Sub Magistrate thereon. The seal affixed on the printed First Information Report is also dated 11th June, 1973. But unfortunately neither this document is marked nor any question has been put with reference to this late receipt of this First Information Report to at least P.W.10, the magisterial clerk. The seal affixed on the printed First Information Report is also dated 11th June, 1973. But unfortunately neither this document is marked nor any question has been put with reference to this late receipt of this First Information Report to at least P.W.10, the magisterial clerk. However, as the fact that the record now available on file shows the time and date of receipt is not disputed and could not be disputed too, I take it that it was received by the Magistrate only on 11th June, 1973 at 9 a.m. In other words, the first information report was received by the Magistrate whose Court is situated in the same town, viz., Tiruvaiyaru after an inordinate delay and the prosecution has not tried to explain as to how this delay has occurred. "The only faint answer made by P.W. 16 is that 10th June, 1973 was Sunday. But in my view it will never prevent the police officials from handing over the express report that too for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, to the Sub-Magistrate. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 15 has deposed that he sent the express reports to the superior officers immediately after the registration of the case. But in my view this answer is totally incorrect in view of the unimpeachable circumstance that the report was received by the Magistrate only on 11th June, 1973 at 9 a.m. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that the police officials should be prompt in sending the first information report as early as possible without any undue delay. 3. The Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders 577 dealing with the despatch of express reports would state that in all cases of murder, culpable homicide etc., shall be sent direct to the local Sub Magistrate and other police officials and should be sent in the quickest way possible either by post or hand. 4. In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu1 the Supreme Court has observed that "on account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained". It is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained". Applying the above principle, in my view, the first information report in this case received by the Magistrate by a delay of 31 hours after it was recorded and by a delay of 36 hours from the time of the occurrence, cannot be considered as one that came into existence at 2 a.m. on 10th June, 1973. 5. It may be noted at this juncture that even the inquest was over by 7a.m., on 10th June, 1973 earlier to the time of receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate. I find from Exhibit P. 31 inquest report both from the initial made by the Sub-Magistrate and the seal there on that the report was received on 11th June, 1973, but the time is not noted. In all the seals, first of all the date was put as "12" by ink and then was over, written as "11". The statements of the witnesses attached along with the inquest report Exhibit P-3l also contain both the initial of the Magistrate and the seal of the Court and in these seals the date was put as 12 and overwritten as 11 by ink. But of course the learned Magistrate has inicialled it as 11th June, 1973. (After going through the record I find that instead of marking the inquist report as Exhibit P-31, the whole file including the statements of the witnesses recorded "during the inquest are marked as Exhibit P-31. In fact, the marking is only on the statement of the witnesses and not or. he report. It is highly reprehensible on the part of the trial Court to mark the documents even without taking any care as to what is the document that they are marking in that case. The statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest are, inadmissible and I wonder how the entire statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest are marked a long with the inquest report as Exhibit P-31. That shows no attention has been bestowed even in respect of marking the documents during the trial that too in a murder case). The statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest are, inadmissible and I wonder how the entire statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest are marked a long with the inquest report as Exhibit P-31. That shows no attention has been bestowed even in respect of marking the documents during the trial that too in a murder case). While dealing with this aspect of receipt of important documents K.N. Mudaliyar, J., while sitting with Paul, J , has given the following guidelines in Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re2: "It is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub Magistrate......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 prove, the only judicial safeguard against fabrication of such documents in grave crime...The following are documents of special importance which 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 Criminal Procedure Code; (2) The printed form of the F.I.R. (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 and 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 Criminal Procedure Code; (8) Form No. 91, accompanied by material objects. [After discussing the other evidence His Lordship concluded:] 6. [After discussing the other evidence His Lordship concluded:] 6. To sum up, the receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate-after an inordinate delay, the non-recording of the statement by the police officials from the injured accused who were present in the station even before the arrival of the prosecution party, the parrot-like version of the eye-witnesses which is highly unbelievable and untrustworthy, the present embellishment on the side of the prosecution case that A-1 caused the injury on the head of the deceased which is not found in the first information report, the unsatisfactory and unacceptable explanation of the injuries found on the person of the accused, and the ingenious reason given by the trial Judge by translating the Tamil word ‘Vayiru’ as head etc., etc., would cumulatively affect the version of the prosecution case and as such no reliance could be placed on this evidence to sustain the convictions passed by the trial Court. In the result, the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court arc set aside and all the accused-appellants are set at liberty forthwith. The fine amount if already collected shall be refunded to A-8 to A-13. 7. The criminal appeal is allowed .