Judgment :- S.T. RAMALINGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE accused Ranganathan tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. for having caused the death of his brother Nagooran, the husband of P. W. 2 Bommi with M. O. 1 Button Knife as well as for an offence punishable under Sec. 324 I. P. C. for having caused simple hurt on P. W. 1 Ramalingam at 7. 00 a. m. on 15-10-1984 very near to Avuseri Colony, 8 Km. from the Pennalurpettai Police Station and was found guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 394-I, I. P. C. for the first charge and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years and was found guilty for an offence under Sec. 324 under the second charge and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 2 years. The sentences were ordered to run, concurrently. Hence the appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The deceased and the accused were brothers. The deceased is the elder brother married to P. W. 2 Bommi. The family owned a vacant land and the father of the accused and the deceased namely, Kuppan was living in his house along with the deceased and P. W. 2 the wife of the deceased, whereas the accused along with his mother and sister living in a hut in front of the house. The accused is a bachelor and he is also a T. B. patient. There were some disputes with reference to the partition of the vacant house site, a day prior to the occurrence. It is alleged that the accused demanded some money from his elder brother the deceased for treatment of his disease. The deceased refused to give money. Thereafter, the deceased demanded the weight and scale which he has entrusted with the accused. The accused refused to give the weight and scale, as a result the deceased beat the accused on his forehead. The accused left the house. On the next day, the deceased went to the nearby field morefully described in EX. P. 5 for answering call of nature, found P. W. 1 was also answering natures call nearby. The accused who came there, asked P. W. 1 to procure the suit case from the deceased. P. W. 1 pacified the accused and called him to his residence for settling the affairs. P. 5 for answering call of nature, found P. W. 1 was also answering natures call nearby. The accused who came there, asked P. W. 1 to procure the suit case from the deceased. P. W. 1 pacified the accused and called him to his residence for settling the affairs. The deceased who was answering natures call nearby uttered that if such demand had been made in the previous night, he would have met with his end. This infuriated the accused and immediately he stabbed the deceased over the left Ziphi sternal notch. Immediately P. W. 1 rushed to the spot and tried to prevent the accused from inflicting further stab. However, the second stab fell on the deceased at the level of 7th and 8th ribs. While warding of the weapon, P. W. 1 had also received injuries morefully described in Ex/p. 2 the copy of the Accident Register issued by P. W. 7. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. Nagooran cried the name of his wife thrice when P. W. I. brought him and kept him on his lap when Nagooran breathed his last. His father, Kuppan who is no more, reached the spot and after hearing as to what had taken place from P. W. 1, he went to the police station along with his daughter-in-law P. W. 2 and gave a. complaint at the police station and the same was written by P. W. 5 Gnanaprakasam. P. W. 11 registered Ex. P. 1 as Crl. No. 141/84 under Sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. Ex. P. 10 is the printed copy of the F. I. R. He gave information to the Circle Inspector P. W. 13 over the telephone. 3. On receipt of information from P. W. 11 the Sub Inspector of Police, P. W. 13 the Inspector of Police reached the Pennalurpet Police Station and after obtaining the copy of the F. I. R. took up further investigation. He visited the spot at 1 p. m. and prepared Ex. P. 16 observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch mark Ex. P. 17. He arranged to photograph the scene occurrence by P. W. 6. He conducted inquest over the dead body of Nagooran between 1 p. m. and 5 p. m. During inquest, he examined P. Ws. 1,2,5 and 6. Ex. P. 15 is the inquest report. P. 16 observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch mark Ex. P. 17. He arranged to photograph the scene occurrence by P. W. 6. He conducted inquest over the dead body of Nagooran between 1 p. m. and 5 p. m. During inquest, he examined P. Ws. 1,2,5 and 6. Ex. P. 15 is the inquest report. He handed over the dead body for postmortem to P. W. 9. He sent P. W. 1 to the Government Hospital, Trivellore for treatment for the injuries found on his right dorsum. At 10 p. m. according to P. W. 13, the accused appeared along with two others at the station with M. O. 1. , knife, P. W. 13 recovered M. O. 1 under Ex. P. 19 as well as the clothes of the accused. He remanded the accused the next day. On 16-10-1984 he examined P. W. 3 Athikesavan. He despatched the materials recovered for the chemical examination and arranged to record the confession of the accused. P. W. 13 examined P. W. 4 on 21-4-1984 and on 22-4-1984, he examined P. W. 11 and P. W. 9. On 20-11-1984 he examined P. W. 8 who conducted the post-mortem. On 17-12-1984 he examined P. Ws. 6 and 7. 4. P. W. 7 Dr. Balachandran examined P. W. 1 on 16-10-1984 and noticed the following injuries. 1. An elliptical shaped wound over the right dorsum of hand near wrist joint 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep edges overted, Clotted blood present. ( 2 ) A lacerated wound over the right dorsum of hand 2 cm below injury No. 1 -2 x 1 x 1 cm x muscle deep. ( 3 ) AN elliptical shaped wound present over the right dorsum of hand 2 cm below injury No. 2, 2 cm x 1 cm. x muscle deep enges overted. Blood clot present. Ex. P. 2 is the copy of the Accident Register given by P. W. 7 with reference to the injuries found on P. W. 1. According to P. W. 7, the injuries found on P. W. 1 are simple in nature. P. W. 8 on receipt of Ex. P. 3 requisition, from P. W. 13 through P. W. 9 the Constable, conducted the postmortem and noticed the following external injuries. 1 An elliptical wound 3 cm x 1. 5 cm present over the left of ziphi sternal notch. P. W. 8 on receipt of Ex. P. 3 requisition, from P. W. 13 through P. W. 9 the Constable, conducted the postmortem and noticed the following external injuries. 1 An elliptical wound 3 cm x 1. 5 cm present over the left of ziphi sternal notch. Wound gaping present. Fluid blood oozing through the wounds present. On probing, probe goes obliquely upwards towards the left nipple about 3 cm, on opening sternum was cut and pierced. 7th and 8th ribs were broken at Sternal end. Heart was perced and a triangular shaped injury was found on the right ventricle. Heart empty. Ecchymosis and clotted blood present on the back of sternum. No washable. About 4 ozs of blood present in the chest cavity. A small portion of lung (left) was punctured on the edge of the base of the left lung 1/2 cmx 1/2 cm. 2. An elliptical wound at the level of 7th rig in the mid axillary line 3 x 1 cm. present. Wound gaping present. On probing, probe goes obliquely down wards towards the epigastrium about 10 cm. On opening, diaphragm was pierced on the left side 2 cm 1 cm a punctured wound on the body of the stomach near greater curvature present 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. On opening the stomach; blood stained fluid and digested food about 1-1/2 ozs. present. Blood clots present on the greater curvature about 2 to 3 ozs fluid mixed with blood present on the peritoneal cavity. 3. 2 cm away from the injury No. (2) An abrasion about 1 cm x 1/2 cm present: P. W. 8, the Doctor, was of the opinion that the deceased would have appeared to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to injuries sustained at the time alleged. According to him, external injury No. 1 th internal injury by itself fatal and could have been caused by a weapon like M. O. 1. Ex. PA is the postmortem certificate. 4. P. W. 10, Thiru Paranjothi, learned Second Class Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the requisition from P. W. 13 to record a statement from the accused under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. after preliminary examination directed the authorities to produce the accused on 20-10-1984. Accordingly on 20-10-1984 at 3. 10 p. m. the accused was produced before him and after observing formalities he recorded the statement from the accused. Ex. P. C. after preliminary examination directed the authorities to produce the accused on 20-10-1984. Accordingly on 20-10-1984 at 3. 10 p. m. the accused was produced before him and after observing formalities he recorded the statement from the accused. Ex. P. 6 is the proceedings recorded by P. W. 10 on 20-10-84. Ex. P. 8 is the statement of the accused recorded by P. W. 10. Ex. P. 9 is the certificate appended to the statement by P. W. 10. 5. P. W. 12 sent the material objects recovered in this case for chemical examination. Ex. P. 13 is the report from the Chemical Examiner. Ex. P. 14 is the report from the Serologist. P. W. 13 filed charge sheet on 9-1-1985 after completing the investigation under Sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. 6. On behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 13 had been examined and Exs. 1 to 19 had been marked. M. Os. 1 to 19 were also produced. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found hat the prosecution had not made out a case for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 I. P. C. but the appellant was found guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 304-I I. P. C. and also found him guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 324 for having caused the simple injuries with dangerous weapon and sentenced him as stated earlier. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Thiru Rajkumar Roberts raised the following points. 1. The prosecution has not explained as to why P. W. 1 has not lodged the complaint even though he happened to be in the village and the sole eye witness to the occurrence. 2. No reason has been stated for sending P. W. 1 for medical examination belatedly after a lapse of 12 hours. 3. The claim of P. W. 13 that the accused was produced by witnesses has not been proved since the witnesses who produced the accused at the police station were not examined. ( 4 ) THE person who is alleged to have chased the accused has not been examined, instead P. Ws. 4 and 5 who were alleged to have seen the accused running away from the scene had been examined. ( 4 ) THE person who is alleged to have chased the accused has not been examined, instead P. Ws. 4 and 5 who were alleged to have seen the accused running away from the scene had been examined. The evidence of P. W. 5 Gnanaprakasam shows that he learnt about the occurrence only from the father of the deceased and the accused. Even though P. Ws. 4 and 5 claimed that they have seen the accused running away from the scene, their evidence seems to be artificial. Since the accused has retracted the confession, no importance could be given to the confession statement unless it is corroborated with material particulars. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor stressed the salient features of the prosecution case that the F. I. R. had been lodged without any delay and there is no ground for the prosecution to concoct the case and urged to sustain the conviction. 11. A perusal of the oral evidence shows that even though P. W. 1 was stated to be an ocular witness, no explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution as to why he has not lodged the complaint even though he was available at the village. P. W. 7 the Doctor, who examined belatedly has opined that the injuries found on P. W. 1 would have been caused with a weapon like M. O. 1. The persons who were alleged to have brought the appellant to the police station have not been examined. No reasons have been given for non examination of those witnesses who produced the accused, as such the manner of arrest of the accused itself in doubt. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the possibility of creating injuries on P. W. 1 as described morefully in Ex. P. 2 to sustain a conviction cannot be ruled out. The foundation for such an argument is the belated treatment given to P. W. 1. The medical evidence is also contrary to the evidence of P. W. 1. Since a sharp edged weapon like M. O. 1 could not have been caused the injuries found on P. W. 1. All these infirmities put together, really cast a doubt in my mind and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and allow the appeal. All these infirmities put together, really cast a doubt in my mind and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and allow the appeal. Appeal allowed.