Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. The Appellants were tried in S.C.No.52 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madras for nine charges. 2. The first charge against all the appellants was for an offence punishable under Sec.148, I.P.C., on the allegation that on 9.10.1983 at about 4 P.M. under a banyan tree at Ranganathapuram near the house of Meignanamurthy (P.W.1) they were members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like pattakathi and ordinary knives and in pursuance of their common object of causing hurt to P.W.1 and committing the murder of Ponnuswami, the father of P.W.1, committed rioting. 3. The second charge was framed for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., against the 4th appellant (4th accused) for his having attacked P.W.1 with a pattakathi on his head during the course of the same transaction. 4. The third charge was against the 2nd appellant (2nd accused) for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., for his having attacked P.W.1 and his younger brother, P.W.2 (Mohan) using the course of the same transaction with a pattakathi. 5. The fourth charge was against the 1st appellant (1st accused) for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., for having attacked P.W.1 on his head with a pattakathi in the course of the same incident, referred to in the earlier charges. 6. Thefifth, sixth and seventh charges were respectively framed for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., against the 3rd appellant (3rd Accused), 5th appellant (5th accused) and 6th appellant (6th accused) on the allegation that they attacked P.W.1 with pattakathi during the course of the occurrence referred to earlier. 7. Theeighth charge was framed against the appellants 1 to 4 (accused 1 to 4) for an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C., or in the alternative under Sec.302, read with Sec.34, I.P.C., in that they, in furtherance of the common intention of committing the murder of Ponnuswami, caused his death by the 4th appellant cutting Ponnuswami on his right ear, the first appellant cutting the deceased on is left ear, the second appellant cutting him on his left hand and the third appellant cutting him on the left leg. 8. 8. The last charge was framed against the appellants 5 and 6 (accused 5 and 6) for an offence punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.149, I.P.C., in that they were members of an unlawful assembly in pursuance of whose common object the murder of Ponnuswami was committed by the appellants 1 to 4. 9. The trial Judge found all the appellants hereinafter referred to as the accused, guilty under the first charge and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under charges 2 to 7 accused 4, 2, 1, 3, 5 and 6 were found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. (Under Charge No.3A2 was sentenced for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., on two counts). Under Charge No.8, A3 and A4 were found directly guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C., while A1 and A2 were found guilty with the aid of Sec.34, I.P.C., and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On the last charge, A5 and A6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. All sentences, were directed to run concurrently. 10. The prosecution can be briefly stated as follows: P.W.1, Meignanamurthi and P.W.2, Mohan are brothers. The deceased Ponnuswami is the father of P.Ws.1 and 2. The deceased had two other sons, one of whom is Rajendran, whose wife Maharasi has been examined as P.W.3. A1 to A3 are brothers. A4 is the brother-in-law of A1 to A3. A5 and A6 are stated to be the friends of A1 to A4. P.W.1 is a resident of Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, Ranganathapuram in Vysarpadi area. The accused belonged to Desikanandapuram. 11. Three months prior to the occurrence there was a fight between P.W.1 and accused 1 to 3, who were accompanied by one Radhakrishnan. One Ethiraj, a fried of P.W.1 was working in an arrack shop. A1 and A2 used to pester Ethiraj to arrange for their employment in the arrack shop. Since P.W.1 was a close friend of Ethiraj, P.W.1 questioned A1 and A2 as to why they were unnecessarily troubling Ethiraj, clamouring for employment. The fight, referred to earlier between P.W.1 and A1 to A3 and another, was with regard to the questioning of A1 and A2 by P.W.1. P.W.1 appears to have filed a complaint against Al1to A3 and Radhakrishnan at Vyasarpadi police station in respect of this incident. 12. The fight, referred to earlier between P.W.1 and A1 to A3 and another, was with regard to the questioning of A1 and A2 by P.W.1. P.W.1 appears to have filed a complaint against Al1to A3 and Radhakrishnan at Vyasarpadi police station in respect of this incident. 12. It is inthis background that the incident referable to this prosecution is stated to have occurred at or about 4 P.M. on 9.10.1983 near a banyan tree at Ranganathapuram adjacent to the residence of P.W.1. Earlier on 9.10.1983, at about 12 noon P.W.1 was wrongfully restrained and threatened at Ambedkar Street, by A1 and A2 questioning about his attitude of support to Ethiraj. P.W.1 challenged A1 and A2 to do whatever they could and left the scene. At or about 4 P.M. when P.W.3 was in her house, A1 to A6, who were armed with knives, questioned her about the whereabouts of her husband. P.W.3 replied that her husband had gone for work. The accused are said to have left the house of P.W.3 stating “come along, he will be in his mother’s house”. P. W.3 followed the accused. P.W.1 who had taken lunch was conversing underneath the banyan tree with his father Ponnuswami, the deceased. The accused reached the banyan tree passing through the houses of P.Ws.5 and 6. On seeing the accused P.W.1 got up. A4, heckling about the statement of P.W.1 earlier do whatever you like stating cut on the head of P.W.1 with the patta knife, M.O.1. P.W.1 warded off the cut with his left hand resulting in the injury on his left thumb and another finger. A2 cut P.W.1 below the knee with the patta knife he possessed. At that stage when the deceased intervened, A4 with M.O.1 cut on the head of the deceased Ponnuswami near the right ear. A1 with his patta knife cut on the left ear of the deceased. The deceased fell down. A2 with his patta knife M.O.2 cut below the left knee of the deceased. When P. W.2 intervened, A1 and A3 cut P.W.1 on his head with their respective patta knives. A5 with his patta knife cut on the right shoulder of P.W.1. With a similar weapon A6 cut on the back of P.W.1. P.W.2, the younger brother of P.W.1 rushed from his house towards the scene. A2 cut P.W.2 on the left mandible region. A5 with his patta knife cut on the right shoulder of P.W.1. With a similar weapon A6 cut on the back of P.W.1. P.W.2, the younger brother of P.W.1 rushed from his house towards the scene. A2 cut P.W.2 on the left mandible region. The accused ran away with their respective weapons. P. W.4, Gurunathan, who is a neighbour of P.W.1 and and ocular witness, immediately procured two rickshaws and putting the injured Ponnuswamy and P.W.1 Meignanamurthi, each in one rickshaw, accompanied them to Vysarpadi Police Station. P.Ws.7 and 8, who live in the locality, saw P.W.1 and Ponnuswami with injuries at the scene of occurrence. At or about 4.10 P.M. when P.W.17 the Head Constable of Vysarpadi Police Station was on duty, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with Ponnuswami, all of them injured, reached the police station. Thiru Ramachandran (P.W.18) Inspector of Police, was also available at the Police station. Since the injured persons were in a serious condition, P.W.18 arranged for their being removed to the Hospital immediately. With a requisition Ex.P20 he sent Ponnuswami and P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the Head Constable, P.W.17 to the Stanely Medical Hospital, Royapuram. Soon thereafter P.W.18 also reached the Stanley Hospital. P.W.15, Dr.Muthurangan, the casualty Medical Officer, on examining Ponnuswami at 4.30 P.M. on9.10.1983, found him dead. P.W.15 issued the wound certificate, Ex.P21 in respect of the injuries he noticed on Ponnuswami, which are detailed hereunder. 1. An incised wound over the pinna of the left ear of it is hanging. 2. An incised wound over the pinna of the R.C. ear 1 inch and contusion to the scalp 2 inches x 1/2 inch x 6 inches. 3. An incised wound over the dorsum of the right fore-arm upper part 3 inches 1 inch. 4. An incised wound over the left leg dorsum fuse below the pupilited for fossa 5 inches x 4 inches x 3 inches. According to P.W.15, the deceased, Ponnuswami could have sustained the injuries noticed by him within half an hour to one hour prior to his examination and those injuries were possible by cutting with weapons similar to M.Os.1 and 2. At 4.45 P.M. on the same day P.W.15 examined P.W.1 and noticed seven injuries described by him in detail as hereunder in the wound certificate Ex.P23. P.W.15 also issueda copy of the accident register, Ex.P22 pertaining to P.W.1. 1. At 4.45 P.M. on the same day P.W.15 examined P.W.1 and noticed seven injuries described by him in detail as hereunder in the wound certificate Ex.P23. P.W.15 also issueda copy of the accident register, Ex.P22 pertaining to P.W.1. 1. An incised wound over the left hand 5 inches x 1 inch between left thumb and left index finger. 2. An incised wound over the tip of the right thumb 1 cm x 1/2 cm. 3. An incised wound over the left parietal region of the scalp 4 inches x 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch. 4. An incised wound over the occipital region of the scalp 6 inches x 1 inch x 1/2 inch. 5. An incised wound over the right shoulder 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 6. A superficial wound over the back upper part 8 inches. 7. An incised wound over the left leg 6 inches below knee joint 5cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm. In the opinion of P.W.15, the injuries noticed on P.W.1 were possible to have been caused between 3 and 4 P.M. by the user of sharp weapons like M.Os.1 and 2. Injury No.1 was grievous in nature while the other injuries were simple. 13. At 5.20 P.M. the same evening P.W.15 examined P.W.2 and found a simple injury on his left mandible described by him as hereunder in Ex.P25, the would certificate issued by him. Ex.P24 is the concerned accident register. An incised wound over the left side mandible region 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/4 cm. In the opinion of the doctor the injury noticed on P.W.2 could have been caused by sharp weapons like M.Os.1 and 2 about an hour prior to his examination. P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, who reached the Stanley Hospital, Royapuram at or about 4.30 P.M., recorded the statement of P.W.1 to his dictation, read it over to him and obtained his signature. Ex.P1 the statement of P.W.1, recorded between 4.30 and 5 P.M. by P.W.18, was registered at 6 P.M. as Cr.No.968 of 1983 for offences under Secs.147, 148, 324, 307 and 302, I.P.C. P.W.18 prepared the printed form of the first information report Ex.P26. 14. At 6.30 P.M. on 9.10.1983, P.W.18 entrusted Ex.P1 kept in a cover along with an instruction memo. Ex.P29 to P.W.19, the Police constable directing him to hand over the first information report to the V.Metropolitan Magistrate. 14. At 6.30 P.M. on 9.10.1983, P.W.18 entrusted Ex.P1 kept in a cover along with an instruction memo. Ex.P29 to P.W.19, the Police constable directing him to hand over the first information report to the V.Metropolitan Magistrate. P.W.19 on receipt of the cover and Ex.P29 is stated to have proceeded to Chrompet, since 9.10.1983 was a Sunday and necessarily the cover had to be handed over at the residence of the Magistrate. P.W.19 would have it that he was unable to find out the residence of the Magistrate at Chrompet and therefore, he returned to Egmore and proceeded to the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at or about 12.30 midnight. It is the further case of P.W.19 that he handed over the tapal containing the first information report to the peon at the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who had acknowledged receipt at 12.30 P.M. in Ex.P29. P.W.18 went to the scene of occurrence at 6.40 P.M. on 9.10.1983 and in the presence of P.W.11, prepared the observation rnahazar, Ex.P4. he also drew the scene sketch, Ex.P27.He seized from the scene of occurrence the blood stained earth, M.O.7 and the sample earth, M.O.8 under a rnahazar, Ex.P13 attested by P.W.11. Between 8.45 P.M. and 11.45 P.M. at the hospital mortuary he conducted the inquest on the dead body of Ponnuswami during which he examined P.W.1 to 4. Ex.P28 is the inquest report. After inquest, with a requisition Ex.P7 he sent the dead body through the Head Constable, P.W. 17 to the Medical Officer, P.W.13 for the conduct of postmortem. On the same night he seized the shirts of P.W.1 and 2 (M.Os.3 and 6) under the rnahazar, Ex.P4 attested by P.W.11. At 6.20 P.M. on 10.10.1983 P.W.13 entrusted the inquest report in a cover M.O.14 to P.W.19, the police constable along with the instruction memo. Ex.P30 with a direction to hand over the same to the V Metropolitan Magistrate. P.W.19 is stated to have taken M.O.14 withits enclosure to the Court to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and handed it over to the Court peon at 6.40 P.M. and obtained his acknowledgment. 15. P.W.13, Dr.Sulochana, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ponnuswami at 10.30 A.M. on 10.10.1983. P.W.19 is stated to have taken M.O.14 withits enclosure to the Court to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and handed it over to the Court peon at 6.40 P.M. and obtained his acknowledgment. 15. P.W.13, Dr.Sulochana, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ponnuswami at 10.30 A.M. on 10.10.1983. She noticed five external injuries and four internal injuries, which she has described in detail as extracted hereunder, in Ex.P 8, the post-mortem certificate issued by her. External injuries: 1. Deep incised wound on the right parieto occipital region cutting through the lobe of right ear extending on to right side of neck cutting through skin, deeper tissues and blood vessels, causing fracture of the underlying bone 10 x 2 cms. 2. Deep incised wound on the back of left leg just below the polital fossa cutting through skin, muscles and blood vessels (Popiliteal artery) 8 x 4 x 5 cms. 3. Abrasion over the chest 1 x 1 cm. 4. Incised wound over the right forearm 1 x 1 cm 5. Left ear lobe completely torn. Internal examination: Heart chambers empty: Lungs pale, Stomach contains 440 gms of undigested rice particles, Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: Pale. Skull: Linear Fracture of the right occipital region. Brain shows diffuse subdural haemorrhage predominant over the Occipital region. These injuries on the skull and brain correspond to external injury No.1 Viscera preserved for Chemical Analysis. In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. The external injuries 1 and 2 with the corresponding internal injuries were necessarily fatal. Injury 1 was possible by a sharp instrument like M.O.1 and all the injuries could have been sustained between 3.30 and 4.30 P.M. on 9.10.1983. Injury No.2 was possible at the same time by the user of M.O.2. The other external injuries could also have resulted at or about the same time due to attack with the sharp instruments. Injury No.3 was possible by a fall. Injury No.5 was grievous in nature while the injuries on the hand and chest were simple in nature. 16. After the post-mortem M.Os.4 and 5, the clothings of the deceased and M.O.13, the waist cord were removed from the dead body and handed over under Form 95 (Ex.P11) to P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, by P.W.17. 17. Injury No.5 was grievous in nature while the injuries on the hand and chest were simple in nature. 16. After the post-mortem M.Os.4 and 5, the clothings of the deceased and M.O.13, the waist cord were removed from the dead body and handed over under Form 95 (Ex.P11) to P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, by P.W.17. 17. On 14.10.1983, at the flower Bazaar Bus stand P.W.18 arrested A1 and A4, as they were alighting from a bus. A1 volunteered a statement that he would point out the bush at Payyanur where he had thrown patta knife along with its leather enclosure. Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.12. A1 and A4 took P.W.18 and P.W.12 to Payyanur Village and at a place 2 km. east of Payyanur from a bush A1 took out M.O.9, a bag in which M.Os.1 and 2 knives were found. M.O.9 also contained M.Os.10 and 11 two other knives and M.O.12, a torn visiting card. These objects were seized under a mahazar Ex.P6. Later at Payyanur Village P.W.18 arrested A2, A3, A5 and A6 and had them remanded. The seized articles were despatched to Court. P.W.18 sent requisitions Ex.P13 and Ex.P15 to the Court for despatch of M.Os.1 to 8 and 13 for chemical analysis. Exs.P17, P18 and P19 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and the Serologist. No blood was dejected in M.Os.1 and 2. The blood found in shirts of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the earth at the scene was human blood. P.W.18 examined P.W.1 to 4 on 9.10.1983. P.Ws.5 to 8 on 10.10.1983, P.W.17 on 11.10.1983; P.W.12 on 14.10.1983, P.W.13 on 25.10.1983 and P.Ws.15 and 16 on 30.11.1983. After completing investigation P.W.18 filed the final report against the accused before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. 18. When the accused were questioned by the trial Court under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, apart from denying their complicity in the crime, they stated that P.W.1 and others were illicit arrack dealers and since the accused party had sent petitions against them to the authorities to take action, out of enmity they have been falsely implicated in this crime, though they had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. 19. The accused examined one K.P.Ekambaram, a resident of M.M.Colony, Vyasarpadi as D.W.1. 19. The accused examined one K.P.Ekambaram, a resident of M.M.Colony, Vyasarpadi as D.W.1. It is the evidence of D.W.1 that at or about 2 to 2.15 P.M. on the occurrence date when he was proceeding to see his daughter, who was residing in a hut near about the Corporation lavatory, a crowd attacked P.W.1 and the deceased. In that crowd the accused were not present. 20. The trial Judge, on an appreciation of the evidence adduced, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them as staled earlier. 21. The point for determination in this appeal, is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, by reliable and acceptable evidence? 22. Thiru N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel for the accused who strenuously attacked the genesis of the first information report pointed out several infirmities, and contended that this prime document, had been fabricated at a later point of time after deliberation and the accused, so many in number had been thought of due to prior enmity, and falsely implicated. He would also content that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and simply because P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured, their evidence will not be entitled to acceptance on the peculiar facts unfurled. He would contend that the evidence of P.W.4, a neighbour,will stand in the same category as that of P.Ws.1 to 3 and has to be rejected. He would also comment that the trial Court not to have accepted the evidence of the hostile witnesses, P.Ws.5 to 10. He would add that in this motiveless occurrence the investigation was so perfunctory leaving several unexplained loose-ends. 23. Thiru N.Arumugham, learned Public Prosecutor per contra would contend that though there has been a delay in the receipt of the first information report by the Court, the prosecution had explained it by examining P.Ws.19 and 20, who are the police-constable messenger, who took the document, and the clerk in the court of the Chief-Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. He would submit that in this day light occurrence P.Ws.1 to 4, who are natural witnesses, had spoken clearly about the entire occurrence very lucidly and cogently and their evidence cannot be reject outright. He would finally submit that though there are certain lapses in the investigation, they may not fully ensure in favour of the accused. 24. He would submit that in this day light occurrence P.Ws.1 to 4, who are natural witnesses, had spoken clearly about the entire occurrence very lucidly and cogently and their evidence cannot be reject outright. He would finally submit that though there are certain lapses in the investigation, they may not fully ensure in favour of the accused. 24. There cannot be any doubt that an incident had occurred in the after-noon of 9.10.1983 in the vicinity of Ranganathapuram during the course of which the deceased met with his death and P.Ws.1 and 2 were injured. That the deceased died of homicidal violence is also established by the medical evidence apart from the ocular testimony. The blood stained earth seized at the scene of occurrence found to be human blood on chemical analysis will also fix the scene of occurrence. However, the question which requires deep and careful scrutiny is the role of the accused, as the authors of the crime. 25. Before we consider the ocular evidence, the attack made on the birth of the first information report by the learned counsel for the appellants will have to be dealt with. The first information report a document of considerable importance, is produced and proved in criminal trials not as a piece of substantive evidence, but with the avowed object of obtaining the early information of the alleged criminal activity and to have a record of the circumstances before there was time for them to be embellished or forgotten. A quick first information report, which reaches the Court of Magistrate with promptitude, will be a towering circumstance which will go a long way to assure the veracity of the prosecution story for, there can be no time to create and deliberate a false case against the accused. It may be in some cases the delay in lodging the first information report may be inevitable, but such delay may have to be satisfactorily explained. Courts have held that long and unexplained delay not only in lodging the first information report but also in its receipt in the court are suspicious circumstances to be taken into consideration while judging the bonafides of the prosecution story, as delay may bring in a coloured version of the whole incident. Courts have held that long and unexplained delay not only in lodging the first information report but also in its receipt in the court are suspicious circumstances to be taken into consideration while judging the bonafides of the prosecution story, as delay may bring in a coloured version of the whole incident. A delayed first information report, which gives rise to suspicion, will put the Court on guard to look for a possible and acceptable explanation for the delay. A delayed first information report in prosecutions, where there are more accused than one, will require careful scrutiny and more so when the possibility of false implication looms large. 26. It is in this background of the view taken by Courts, on the importance of the first information report, the facts on record will have to be carefully appreciated. Ex.P1 the first information report is stated to have been recorded by P.W.18 from P.W.1 at the Government Stanely Hospital at or about 4.30 P.M. on 9.10.1983, about half an hour after the incident. The crime was registered, on Ex.P1, at 6 P.M. At the first blush, the promptness with which Ex.P1 has been recorded appears to present a water-tight case for the prosecution, especially when the ocular witnesses have been mentioned in this earliest document, out of whom, two are injured. However, the despatch of Ex.P1 and the printed form of the first information report to the Court presents a sad and sorry state of affairs. It is the evidence of P.W.18 as if Ex.P1 was sent through the police constable, P.W.19 to the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore along with the direction memo Ex.P29 and if so one would expect this document to have reached the Court of the concerned Magistrate with the least possible delay, the same evening. It may be as put forth by the prosecution that an attempt was aimed at to take this document to Chrompet,to the residence of the Magistrate since the date of occurrence, happened to be a Sunday. It is however impossible to readily accept the version of P.W.19, a Police constable attached to Vysarpadi Police Station, that he was unable to find out the residence of the V Metropolitan Magistrate at Chrompet. It is however impossible to readily accept the version of P.W.19, a Police constable attached to Vysarpadi Police Station, that he was unable to find out the residence of the V Metropolitan Magistrate at Chrompet. It cannot be lost sight of the first information reports from this police station are always scheduled to be handed over to the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate. In the usual course, P.W.19 must have been aware of the residence of the Magistrate at Chrompet or in any event the local police must have easily helped him to find out the residence. P.W.19 deposes that after his unsuccessful attempt at Chrompet to deliver this document, he reached the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at midnight and handed over the cover containing Ex.P1 to a peon at the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and obtained his acknowledgment in Ex.P29. We find that in Ex.P29, one Ramamurthi has signed underneath the endorsement “received at 12.30 P.M. on 9.10.1983”. This Ramamurthy was not examined either during investigation or even in Court, even after substantial doubts were sought to be raised by the defence on the travails of this valuable document. Ex.P29 had not been sent to Court and for the first time it is produced when the police constable P.W.18 was examined on 8.8.1984, before the trial Court, after the recording of the Chief-examination of Investigating Officer, P.W.8. Even P.W.19, the messenger who took Ex.P1 was not examined during investigation. Ex.P30 is another instruction memo said to have been handed over to P.W.19 by P.W.18 to hand over the cover containing the inquest report to the V Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.10.1983 and the same story has been repeated itself for it had been allegedly handed over to a peon of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate named Pachamuthu, who had acknowledged it on 10.104983 at 6.40 P.M. Pachamuthu was neither examined during investigation nor put in the witness box. Ex.P30 is also produced in Court for the first time on 8.8.1984. The inquest report Ex.P28 has been received by the Magistrate at 2 P.M. on 11.10.1983 and the Court seal also bears the same date. The inquest was over at 11.45 P.M. on 9.10.1983. No explanation has been offered for the 38 hours delay in this document reaching the court. The inquest report Ex.P28 has been received by the Magistrate at 2 P.M. on 11.10.1983 and the Court seal also bears the same date. The inquest was over at 11.45 P.M. on 9.10.1983. No explanation has been offered for the 38 hours delay in this document reaching the court. It is not as though P.W.18 was not aware of the Exs.P29 and P30 for his signature with the seal dated 9.10.1983 and 10.10.1983 is found on the respective documents. If the documents had come into existence as put forth by the prosecution, it would have been the duty of the investigating officer to examine both the witnesses and record their statements under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. and also to have sent Ex.P29 and Ex.P30 to the Court immediately to preserve the sanctity of the earliest document. Unfortunately, when P.W.18 was cross-examined, he has stated that he did not question P.W.19 on 9.10.1983 as to whom the first information report was handed over and P.W.19 also did not tell him about it. However, on the next day, P.W.19 informed him that he had handed over Ex.P26, the printed form of the first information report to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. P.W.18 admits that he did not find out if the document had reached the concerned Magistrate, since he did not take in seriously for in the usual course the reports reached the Magistrate. He also admits that he did not examine either Ramamurthi or Pachamuthu. 27. Let us now look at Exs.P1 and P26 to ascertain the time they have reached the Court. In Ex.P1 in the first and third pages the initials of the Magistrate are found and the date is noted as 10.10.1983. In Ex.P1 there is no Court seal and the only court seal found is that of the court of Session made on 1.8.1984 when the document was marked as Ex.P1. In Ex.P1 the time of receipt has not been noted by the Magistrate. In Ex.P26, the printed form of the first information report, the following endorsement of the Magistrate above his initials dated 10.10.1983 is found: “Received at 5 P.M.” The Magistrate who has initialled Ex.P26 is stated to be the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, as is evident from the document. We also find a seal in Ex.P26 of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10th October, 1983. We also find a seal in Ex.P26 of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10th October, 1983. If Exs.P1 and P26 which must have gone together to the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as put forth by the prosecution on the midnight of 9.10.1983, one would expect the documents to have been received by the concerned Magistrate sufficiently early on the morning of 10.10.1983. There must also be some indication in the document themselves to show that they had been received by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at his residence, and then forwarded under his directions to the usual Court which receives the first information reports, from P.3 Police Station. P.W.20, the clerk attached to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who was examined on 8.8.1984 after the Chief Examination of the investigating officer, P.W.18 was recorded on the same day, would depose that the initials of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were not found in both Exs.P1 and P26. He is also certain that it was not possible to state that the exact time when these documents had reached the Court. He speaks about the seal of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Ex.P26 in which the letter ‘D’ in red indicated its receipt from the tapal section. According to him, it must be presumed that Ex.P26 was received from the tapal section. He affirms that the time of receipt of Ex.P26 was 5 P.M. on 10.10.1983. At this stage we requested the learned Public Prosecutor to produce before Court the concerned registers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the tapal section the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate and the register maintained at the concerned police station to satisfy ourselves about the movements of Exs.P1 and P26 from 6 P.M. on 9.10.1983 till 5 P.M. on 10.10.1983. The learned Public Prosecutor was in a position to produce only one register called “D FIR” V.M.M.Court, 1982 and 1983 in which we find an entry about this crime, which has led to CC 1374/84 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate on 3.2.1984. In the column ‘date of receipt by the Magistrate’ it is noted as 10.10.1983. In cases, which have been closed, we find the signature of the Magistrate, but, as far as this crime is concerned, there is no signature of the concerned Magistrate. In the column ‘date of receipt by the Magistrate’ it is noted as 10.10.1983. In cases, which have been closed, we find the signature of the Magistrate, but, as far as this crime is concerned, there is no signature of the concerned Magistrate. This register at the most will show that the first information report in this crime had been received by the Magistrate on 10.10.1983. This receipt as has been stated already, is evident from the endorsement of the Magistrate in Ex.P26, itself. 28. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the first information reports registered at the P-3 Police Station, will normally be sent to the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate. We find that the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate has initialled Ex.P26 and if that be so, there must be explanation as to why the document was not sent to the V Metropolitan Magistrate. A casual statement is made by P.W.20 in his evidence, that the V Metropolitan Magistrate might have been on leave on 10.10.1983. It is a matter for easy verification whether the V Metropolitan Magistrate attended the Court on 10.10.1983 and even this elementary investigation had not been resorted to by P.W.18. P.W.20 deposed in re-examination that in the correspondence section on Ex.P1, an entry has been made as V Metropolitan Magistrate. If such an entry is found on Ex.P1 it can normally be presumed that the V Metropolitan Magistrate was available and to thwart such presumption, evidence must have been, let in, which is absent in this case. It may be that the V Metropolitan Magistrate was on leave on 10.10.1983, and if there were not other infirmities which we have noticed in Ex.P1 and P26, this factor alone might not attract serious significance. The registers from the police station and the other Courts have not been produced even in this Court. It is common knowledge that in first information report as soon as it is received by the Magistrate, he puts in his initials along with the date and time of its receipt. It is also admitted by P.W.20 that the first information report relating to Sessions Cases will not be directly received by him, but it will be passed on, only after the Magistrate initials them. He also confirms the usual practice of the handing over of the first information reports by the police constables, directly to the Magistrate. It is also admitted by P.W.20 that the first information report relating to Sessions Cases will not be directly received by him, but it will be passed on, only after the Magistrate initials them. He also confirms the usual practice of the handing over of the first information reports by the police constables, directly to the Magistrate. He faigns ignorance of the procedure to be followed on holidays and out of office hours. Though P.W.20 confirms that one Ramamurthi and another Pachamuthu are peons at the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate does not state that they are authorised to receive the first information reports. He has not been confronted with Exs.P29 and P30 to identify the signatures of the said Ramamurthi and Pachamuthu found in the documents. He was also not asked to identify Ramamurthi and Pachamuthu. During investigation P.W.20 was not examined and for the first time he was produced in Court on 8.8.1984 even without a statement under Sec.161, Cr.P.C. P.W.20 admits that there was a register maintained in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relating to the receipt of tapal but even that register is not forthcoming inspite of our directions. We entertain sufficient doubt about Exs.P1 and P26 having gone together and these documents, having reached the residence of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the night of 9.10.1983. If we take the documents themselves, it can be safely taken that Ex.P26 has reached the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate at 5P.M.on 10.10.1983. The non-production of the details regarding the travel of Exs.P1 and P26 from 6 P.M. On 9.10.1983 to 5.P.M. on 10.10.1983 is rather unfortunate and at the best we can conclude that the first information had reached the Magistrate only 25 hours after the alleged incident though the distance to the police station from the scene of occurrence is 1 1/2 Km. and the distance to the court is approximately 5 Km. This Court in Karunakaran Japamani Nadar, In re., 1974 L.W. (Crl.)190, observed as follows: “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 Sec.154 of the Cr.P.C. on receipt of the said documents. 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 Sec.154 of the Cr.P.C. on receipt of the said documents. The Magistrate should initial the same, nothing therein the time and date of the receipt of these documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. The following are documents of special importance which, should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrate, 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 complain under Sec 154 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Theprinted 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 for the recovery of materials objects, search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act, etc. prepared in the course of the investigation. 7. The statements of witnesses recorded under Sec.161(3) of the Crl.P.C. 8. Form No.91, accompanied by material objects.” This view was reiterated by Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was in K.Vadivelu, In re., 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 775. In this case, the learned Judge has made a reference to the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order 577 dealing with despatch of express reports to be made in the quickest way possible either by post or hand in all cases of murder, culpable homicide, etc. It will be relevant to remember at this stage the following observation of the Supreme Court in Thuliak Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 501: 1972 Crl.L.J. 1296: (1972)3 S.C.C. 393 : 1972 S.C.C. (Crl.) 593. It will be relevant to remember at this stage the following observation of the Supreme Court in Thuliak Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 501: 1972 Crl.L.J. 1296: (1972)3 S.C.C. 393 : 1972 S.C.C. (Crl.) 593. “On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of advantage of spantaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consideration. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.” 29. On facts we are not satisfied that the delay of 25 hours in the receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate has been satisfactorily explained. It cannot be argued, that since the first information was recorded at 4.30 P.M. and registered at 6 P.M. On 9.10.1983, it had been promptly made, for, the sanctity of the birth of the document, at the time and in the manner alleged, is open to very grave doubt. The Magistrate was duty bound to put in the time of receipt Ex.P1, which he has not chosen to do inspite of various pronouncement of this Court. Prima facie the alleged registration of the first information report at 6 P.M. on 9.10.1983 appeared to be a very strong circumstance against the accused, but when the court probes into the facts deeper and deeper, it generates more and more suspicion with regard to the genesis of Ex.P1. It cannot be overlooked that on the basis of this valuable document, the edifice of the prosecution is built up and once its having been prepared as alleged is doubted, there is a complete collapse of the foundation of the prosecution. If the first information report could have come into being at 4.30 P.M. as alleged, it could not have taken 25 hours to reach the Magistrate. The belated explanation sought to be offered is not only bereft of salient particulars but also appears unreliable in the background of the various infirmities pointed out by us. If the first information report could have come into being at 4.30 P.M. as alleged, it could not have taken 25 hours to reach the Magistrate. The belated explanation sought to be offered is not only bereft of salient particulars but also appears unreliable in the background of the various infirmities pointed out by us. In Savi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Crl.L.J. 736: (1982)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 7: (1982)1 S.C.J. 289: 1981 S.C.C. (Crl.) 679, the Supreme Court observed that the non-production of the first information report book, general diary, etc., when the allegation by the accused was that the original first information report was suppressed, an inference against the prosecution may have to be drawn, suspecting its case. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Velusami, 1981 L.W. (Crl.) 63, observed that if the Court is satisfied that the first information report was not a true document containing what had actually happened on the date of the occurrence, and there was a doubt about the first information report being fabricated or brought into existence to implicate as entire fabric of the prosecution case collapsed. It also observed in the said background, that eye witnesses, though injured, cannot be relied on, due to enmity. 30. We hold, in the light of the judicial pronouncements applied to the facts of this rase, that it will be unsafe to rely upon Ex.P1 as a genuine document having come into being soon after the incident, as alleged by the prosecution. Naturally it has to be concluded that the foundation for this prosecution is absolutely crippled. 31. Let us now consider the evidence of P.W.1 who is the author of the first information report. He has deposed that at the instance of the accused a case against him and his younger brother Mahendran for an offence under Sec.324, I.P.C., was pending before the court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate. He also adds that on the complaint given by him against the accused they had been sentenced to pay a fine. That it cannot be so is clear from the evidence of P.W.18, the investigating Officer, who states that on the complaint of A.2, P.W.1 and his younger brother Mahendran were prosecuted while the complaint with regard to the same incident preferred by P.Ws.1 and 2 against the accused was referred as mistake of fact. That it cannot be so is clear from the evidence of P.W.18, the investigating Officer, who states that on the complaint of A.2, P.W.1 and his younger brother Mahendran were prosecuted while the complaint with regard to the same incident preferred by P.Ws.1 and 2 against the accused was referred as mistake of fact. P.W.1 further admits that he was involved earlier in a clash relating to arrack. It is not as though P.W.1 was not aware as to the proceedings in Court or setting the law in motion. Though it can be conceded on facts that P.W.1 and the deceased were seriously injured and need was imminent to send them to the hospital, rather than record a complaint at the police station, it cannot be overlooked that there was a possibility for a complaint being recorded from P.W.2, the younger brother of P.W.1 and the son of the deceased. This possibility is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.2, that at the police station P.W.1 was unable to talk and was in a state of swooning. He is also certain that only after he narrated the details of the incident to the police constable present, he along with P.W.1 and the deceased were sent to the hospital. In the background of the doubt we entertain about that coming into being of Ex.P1. We are not able to completely exclude the possibility of an earlier complaint at the police station having been recorded at the instance of P.W.2 one of the injured witnesses. The further admission of P.W.1 that he did not tell the doctor as to how the occurrence had happened cannot also be ignored, as without significance. It also appears possible that there was enmity between A1 and P.W.1 arising out of the activities of Anna Marumalarchi Mandram. The further admission of P.W.1 that there used to be incessant quarrels between him and his uncle Radhakrishnan lends assurance to the defence’s suggestion that such quarrels were due to disputes in illicit sale of arrack. It has already been noticed that Ethiraj working in an arrack shop is a close friend of P.W.1. The acceptance of P.W.1 about his involvement in an earlier arrack clash cannot be brushed aside, especially when the defence has come out with a suggestion that the deceased and P.W.1 sustained injuries in the course of a clash relating to illicit sale of arrack. The acceptance of P.W.1 about his involvement in an earlier arrack clash cannot be brushed aside, especially when the defence has come out with a suggestion that the deceased and P.W.1 sustained injuries in the course of a clash relating to illicit sale of arrack. It is also the specific suggestion of the accused that the occurrence had taken place near the public inconvenience of the Corporation of Madras situated near the alleged scene venue in which unknown persons had attacked the prosecution party and the said incident had been utilised to falsely implicate the accused. The case of the accused gains strength in view of the serious infirmities we have noticed on the acceptability of the first information report. The admission of P.W.2 that he had stated during investigation only certain parts of the over acts attributed by him now to A.1 and A.4 will also make it possible to visualise that P.W.2 who was sleeping in his house due to sickness could not have been present to witness the entire incident though at a later point of time, when he reached the scene he was attacked in the clash, whomsoever might be the assailants. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, the daughter-in-law of the deceased shows that the accused had gone in search of her husband to her house situated at Ponnappa Mudali Street, some distance away from the incident scene, little prior. She is certain that the accused did not enquire about P.W.1. There appears to be no ostensible purpose for P.W.3 to have followed the accused to the scene of occurrence at Ranganathapuram. She could not have anticipated any problem to her husband since her husband, according to her, had gone for work. During investigation she had not specifically stated the part of the head where A1 and A4 had attacked her father-in-law though she would choose to give such a version in Court. The evidence of P.W.4, Gurunathan, a close associate of P.W.1 for over 12 years, does not inspire confidence. During investigation she had not specifically stated the part of the head where A1 and A4 had attacked her father-in-law though she would choose to give such a version in Court. The evidence of P.W.4, Gurunathan, a close associate of P.W.1 for over 12 years, does not inspire confidence. His evidence that his shirt got blood-stained, when he took the deceased to the police station, while the latter was leaning on his shoulder, which shirt, he had washed to remove the blood-stains without handing it over to the police, creates suspicion the facts of this case, about his having been on ocular witness and his having accompanied the injured to the police station. Further P.W.4, speaks only about a part of the occurrence and not the whole and his evidence that he went to fetch rickshaws even before the occurrence had terminated, cannot be readily accepted. If the evidence of the ocular witnesses does not command itself for acceptance, in the background of rejection of the first information report, the evidence of the hostile witnesses seeking to furnish res jestae material, can be of no consequence. The choice of P.W.11, a witness in an earlier case of the same police station, to arrest certain mahazars, also creates a doubt, that all is not well with the prosecution. The evidence of Dr.Sulochana, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ponnuswami shows that the deceased must have met with his death 15 to 30 minutes after he had taken his food. The evidence indicates that normally the deceased could have his food at or about 1 P.M. and no special circumstances are indicated for the deceased to have had his food much later on the date of incident. If the time of occurrence fixed by the prosecution as 4 P.M. has to be accepted, the deceased must have had his food between 3 and 3.30 P.M., which does not appear to be the prosecution case. This part of the medical evidence, though cannot be clinching in all cases, on the peculiar facts and various facts discussed we are not able to ignore this piece of evidence altogether as not material for, the time of occurrence could quite possibly be fixed at least two hours earlier to the time put forth now by the prosecution. This part of the medical evidence, though cannot be clinching in all cases, on the peculiar facts and various facts discussed we are not able to ignore this piece of evidence altogether as not material for, the time of occurrence could quite possibly be fixed at least two hours earlier to the time put forth now by the prosecution. The time of occurrence as projected by the defence though D.W.1 is 2 or 2.15 P.M. Though we are not appreciating in detail the evidence of D.W.1 we are unable to rule out the possibility of the occurrence having taken place earlier than alleged not only on the medical evidence but also on the version of D.W.1, coupled with several other circumstances detailed earlier by us. Further, in this day light occurrence, independent evidence must have been available, as is patent from the recorded evidence. 32. We have already pointed out that P.W.18 the investigating officer, had been so indifferent in not having traced the movements of Exs.P1 and P26 and in not having chosen to put the best evidence before Court, explaining the delay in the reaching of the first information report, the inquest report and statements of the ocular witnesses to the Court. No attempt has been made to look at all the concerned register and produce them before Court, to lend assurance to the prosecution version that the first information report was born at the time and in the manner stated by the prosecution. P.W.18, who was available at the police station when P.Ws.1 and 2 had accompanied the deceased, who was in a serious condition must have in the usual course thought it fit to record information about this grave crime either from P.W.2 or P.W.4, if in fact they had reached the police station as alleged, for, otherwise it is possible to presume that with such serious injuries the prosecution witnesses themselves would have initially gone to the hospital and later the first information report was recorded on intimation from the hospital or information to the police station from one or other of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge in this context had placed strong reliance on Exs.P21 and P22, which are duplicate copies of the accident register issued to the deceased Ponnuswami and P.W.1 wherein it has been stated that the victims were assaulted allegedly by six known persons by using patta knives on 9.10.1983 at about 4 P.M. Exs.P21 and P22 have reached the Court only in February, 1984 and even otherwise the six known person cannot safely be taken to be the accused especially when we entertain doubts about the genesis of the first information report. The trial Court was conscious that there was sufficiently long delay in the despatch and receipt of the first information report, but, had chosen to relegate it to the background in view of the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 which he had accepted as true and reliable. This approach by the trial Judge cannot be sustained in a prosecution where more than one accused are involved and their implication with an ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. It is in such cases the importance of the first information report assumes very great significance and if, as stated earlier, the earliest document does not inspire confidence, the prosecution cannot blame the Court if the entire edifice built by it on this document has to be rejected. There was no serious motive for the accused to attack the prosecution party as has been alleged in this case, though the possibility of the prosecution party having sustained the injuries in an altogether different pattern, does loom large. If the occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution and if A.5 and A.6 were also armed with patta knives, it is inconceivable that both of them did not even choose to attack the deceased. 33. In view of the serious infirmities pointed out by us, we are unable to accept the prosecution case to safely base a conviction on the accused. As has been observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Velusami, 1981 L.W. (Crl.) 63, by a Division Bench of this Court, the evidence of eye witnesses though injured cannot be relied on if the entire fabric of the prosecution case collapsed on the first information report found to have been fabricated or brought into existence to implicate as many persons as possible after deliberation. The enmity at least to the extent of implicating the accused falsely cannot be ruled out in view of the prior prosecution of P.W.1 and his younger brother at the instance of the accused and the throwing out of the complaint instituted by P.W.1 against A.1 and others. The individual overt acts attributed to the accused vis-a-vis P.Ws.1 and 2 and which form part of the charges 2 to 7 meed no separate consideration in view of our having rejected the entire fabric of the prosecution case. We hold, after a careful consideration of the entire material available in this case, that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 34. Before parting with this case we stated that we are extremely shocked at the callous manner in which the investigation has been conducted by P.W.18. The investigating agency owes a duty not only to the Court to place the true facts, but also the society at large to bring to book the real perpetrators of the crime. Courts have to see that no real culprit goes away beyond its reach and escapes punishment. Nevertheless, the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt by letting in acceptable, convincing and implicity reliable evidence, for, otherwise grave injustice would be the result, if the Court, chooses to punish a person only on moral satisfaction. In the absence of several registers which could have been easily produced and the non-examination of material witnesses which could have been easily done, the Court is left handicapped. The non-adopting of such procedure cannot be stated by the prosecution as not affecting its grass-roots, for the benefit of doubt, cannot be given to it. 35. It may or may not be that the accused are the authors of this crime. But, the Court cannot close its eyes ignoring all infirmities and flaws in the investigation, which cut at the root of the case bringing the whole edifice of the prosecution into debris. The public expectation of efficient, fair and speedy justice cannot be fulfilled by the Court only, whose duty is to administer justice according to law on the evidence available on record. The public expectation of efficient, fair and speedy justice cannot be fulfilled by the Court only, whose duty is to administer justice according to law on the evidence available on record. Courts cannot be carried away or influenced by any sentimental feelings but have to assess the evidence in the proper perspective and arrive of certain conclusion, that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 36. It is very painful and regrettable that in this case despite the occurrence having taken place in day time, the serious flaws and defects both in the investigation and in the evidence which we have pointed out, constrain us to acquit the accused. The investigating agency as well as the Subordinate Magistrates will do well to follow the guidelines laid down by this Court on the duties cast on them regarding the receipt and despatch of the first information reports. 37. This appeal is allowed and the accused are acquitted of all the charges.