Judgment : PRATAP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No. 107195 on the file of Sessions Judge, South Arcot District, Cuddalore, are the appellants. The appellants and Natesan and Pichaikara Gounder, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 4 respectively faced trial before the learned trial Judge. The charges were that (i) on 23/11/1984, at about 6.00 P. M. at Nathamedu village, in the garden of Jayaram, accused No. 3 with intention to cause the death of Andal, beat her with iron crow-bar on her head on the left and right sides and caused her death and hence liable to be punished under section 302, Indian Penal Code. (ii) At the same time, place, accused No. 2, with intention to cause the death of Jayaraman, beat him on his left hand and stabbed him on his forehead with crow-bar and attempted to commit his murder and hence he is liable to be punished, under section 307, Indian Penal Code. (iii) At the same time and place accused No. 2 voluntarily caused simple hurt on the left palm of Lakshathipathi with crow-bar and hence liable to be punished under section 324, Indian Penal Code. (iv) At the same time and place, accused No. 1 beat Jayaraman with a firewood stick on his back and caused simple injury and hence liable to be punished under section 323, Indian Penal Code. (v) At the same time and place while accused No. 2 stabbed Jayaraman on the forehead and beat him on his left hand with crow-bar and attempted to murder him and while accused No. 1 beat the said Jayaraman on his back with a firewood, accused No. 4 caught hold of Jayaraman and instigated accused No. 2 to murder him and hence he is liable to be punished under section 307, read with 109, Indian Penal Code. After elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge, has found the first appellant (Accused no. 2) Not guilty of offence under section 307-I. P. C. but guilty under section 326 and 334 I. P. CT and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and six months respectively, the sentences to run concurrently. He also found the second appellant (accused No. 3) guilty of offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. , and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life. He also found the second appellant (accused No. 3) guilty of offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. , and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge has found accused 1 and 4 not guilty of the offences with which they were charges and had acquitted them. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is briefly as follows: P.W.1 Jayaraman and the first accused Natesan are the sons of the for accused Pichaikara Gounder. Accused 2 and 3 are sons of the first accused. They lived in the family house which is situated in North Street, Nathamedu village. The accused are living in the western portion; whereas. P. W. 1 is living in the eastern portion of the said. house. The door way for the eastern portion is facing south. The family owns lands to an extent of 3-1/2 acres. P. W. 1 got married in 1964 and since then he is living separately. The father viz, the fourth accused did not give any land to P. W. 1. despite his demand for the same and on that score. there were disputes. Just about one year prior to the occurrence P. WA gave 70 cents of land to P. W. l for his enjoyment. Deceased Andal was the sister of Dhanam wife of P. W. 1. She was staying with P. W. 1 and his family in his portion in the house for about six months prior to the, occurrence. ( 3 ) VARADHARAJAN, the elder brother of Dhanam and Andal is living at Ulundhandarkoil. The accused asked Varadharajan to give his daughter Anjalai in marriage to the second accused 10 days prior to the occurrence. Dhanam and. Andal objected to the, proposal and told Varadharajan not to give his daughter in marriage to accused No. 2, since there is dispute between the accused and P. W: lover the family lands. On the fateful day. Manonmani wife of Varadharajan had come to P. W. ls House. P. W. 1 went to Kalpattu to purchase lice for household use and returned to the house by about 6. On the fateful day. Manonmani wife of Varadharajan had come to P. W. ls House. P. W. 1 went to Kalpattu to purchase lice for household use and returned to the house by about 6. 00 P. M. By then Manonmani and Andal were talking loudly about the proposal to give Anjalai in marriage to accused No. 2; Manonmani was telling that she is going to give her daughter in marriage to accused No. 2; whereas Andal objected to it and there was mutual shouting. On hearing it all the four accused came out of the house and third accused shouted at Andal saying that she, is preventing the alliance and so he is going to finish her off. for which Andal retorted. Accused No. 3 ran into the house and came out with the crow-bar M. O. 1 and beat on the head of Andal twice. On receipt of the beatings. Andal fell down. speechless. P. W. 1 rushed to the scene scolding the accused for having beaten Andal. Accused No. 4 told the other accused to finish him off and so saying caught hold of him. Accused No. 2 snatched M. O. 1 from the hands of accused No. 3 and beat P. W. 1 on the left fore-arm. At that time, P. W. 2 Lakshathipathi intervened and the beating fell on his left hand also. On receiving the beating P. W. 2 stepped aside. Accused No. 2 hit P. W. 1 with M. O. 1 crow-baron his fore-head. Accused No. 1 beat P. W. 1, with M. O. 2 firewood stick. P. W. 3 vadivel and Manoharan separated them. They also bandaged the injury on the head of Andal with a wet cloth. On the intervention of P. W. 3 and Manoharan, the accused fled away from the scene with the crow-bar. ( 4 ) P. W. 3 and Manoharan took the injured P. Ws. 1, 2 and Andal in a cart to Kalpattu and then to government Hospital, Villuppuram. Dr. Thularam who was worlcing there as Civil Assistant surgeon. had examined Andal on 23/11/1984 at 8. 10 P. M. By then Andal was unconscious. The doctor found on her the following injuries. (1) A lacerated injury vertically placed, 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region of the scalp with fresh bleeding from the wound. Thularam who was worlcing there as Civil Assistant surgeon. had examined Andal on 23/11/1984 at 8. 10 P. M. By then Andal was unconscious. The doctor found on her the following injuries. (1) A lacerated injury vertically placed, 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region of the scalp with fresh bleeding from the wound. (2) A lacerated injury 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left frontal region of the scalp vertically placed. (3) Tenderness in the sacral region. Ex. P12 is the wound certificate. On the same day, he examined P. W. 1 at 8. 10 P. M. and round on him the following injuries: (1) Swelling tenderness and derormity on the left hand (Bony lesion) 8 cm x 4 cm. (2) A lacertated injury 3 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on the centre of fore head (X-ray skull) (3) A linear contusion reddish in colour, obliquely placed, 20 cm x 2 cm on the middle of back. In his opinion, injury No. 1 is grievous in as much as there was fracture in injury No. 1 and other injuries are simple in nature. Ex. P13 is the wound certificate concerning him. On the same day, at 8. 25 p. m. he examined P. W. 2 and found on him a lacerated injury 3 cm x 1 cm x 11/2 cm with swelling, tenderness on the base of left index finger bony lesion. In his opinion, the injury is simple in nature. Ex. P14 is the wound certificate. P. W. 1 and Andal were admitted as inpatient. The doctor sent intimation Ex. P15 to the police station. On the next day, viz. , on 24/11/1984, at 6. 45 A. M. Andal succumbed to the injuries and so P. W. 10 sent death intimation Ex. P16 to the police station. ( 5 ) P. W. 11 Selvaraj, Head Constabble at Villupuram west police station received Ex. PIS intimation from the Government Hospital on 23/11/1984 at 9. 45 P. M. Immediately he proceeded to the hospital and since Andal was unconscious, he examined P. W. 1 and recorded his statement Ex. P1. Since the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Villupuram Taluk Police Station, he sent the First Information Report to the said police station. P. W. 12 Kaliyaperumal Sub-Inspector of Villupuram Taluk Police Station, received Ex. P1. Since the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Villupuram Taluk Police Station, he sent the First Information Report to the said police station. P. W. 12 Kaliyaperumal Sub-Inspector of Villupuram Taluk Police Station, received Ex. P1 and P15 at 1. 30, A. M. on 24/11/1984 and registered case in Crime No. 484/84 under sections 341, 324,325,323 and 307, I. P. C. and prepared Express First Information Report Ex. P7 and sent it to the Judicial Magistrate. He sent copies of Ex. P17 to his higher authorities. Then he proceeded to Government Hospital and since Andal was unconscious, he proceeded to the scene place, inspected the same and prepared observation mahazar Ex. P2 and scene sketch Ex. P18. From the scene place, he seized firewood stick M. O. 2 under mahazar Ex. P3. P. W. 5 Devaraj and Selvaraj who were present had attested Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. On his return to the Police Station, P. W. 12 received the death intimation Ex. P16 at 8. 30 A. M. and immediately he altered the case as one under section 302, I. P. C. and prepared Express Report Ex. P19 and sent it to the court and copies of the same to his higher authorities. ( 6 ) P. W. 13 Jeevandran, Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk, took up investigation on receipt of Ex. P19. He proceeded to Government Hospital, Villupuram and conducted inquest over the dead body of Andal from 9. 35 A. M. to 1. 00 P. M. in which he examined P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 and other witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex. P20. After completion of inquest, he sent the dead body for medical examination with requisition Ex. P4 through police Constable P. W. 9 Iyyanar. ( 7 ) P. W. 6 Dr. Vasantha, Civil Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Villupuram, received the requisition and on the same day, commenced postmortem examination at 3. 00 P. M. She found the following external injuries. 1. A suturoo wound 4 cm in length longitudinal in direction seen on the parietal region of scalp right side. Wound was sutured with nylon. Number of stitches 4. 2. A sutured wound 8 cm. in length longitudinal in direction, extending from frontal region of scalp to parital region left side. Wound was sutured with nylon. Number of stitches 6. 1. A suturoo wound 4 cm in length longitudinal in direction seen on the parietal region of scalp right side. Wound was sutured with nylon. Number of stitches 4. 2. A sutured wound 8 cm. in length longitudinal in direction, extending from frontal region of scalp to parital region left side. Wound was sutured with nylon. Number of stitches 6. Internally, on dissection of injury No. 1 she found extravasation of blood seen underneath the scalp on the Parietal region right side and on dissection of injury No. 2, she saw extravation of blood underneath the scalp on the frontal and parietal region of scalp left side. There was commuted fracture bone, parietal bone left side, and fissured fracture of occipital left side. Clotted blood seen over the duramatter on the frontal and parietal region left (extradural haemorrhage ). In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of extradural haemorrhage and fracture of skull due to head injury. Ex. PS is the postmortem certificate issued by her. External injuries 1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death. After autopsy P. W. 9 took saree M. O. 3, cloth M. O. 4 and skirt M. O. 5 from the dead body and produced them before P. W. 12. ( 8 ) ON 26. 11. 1984 at 3. 00 P. M. at Arasur Mukkutu Road, P. W. 13 arrested accused 1 and 3. Accused No. 3 volunteered a confession statement in which he said that he would produce the crowbar from his house. Ex. P6 is the admissible portion in the confession statement. He took the Inspector and party to his house and produced M. O. 1 crow-bar which the Inspector seized under mahazar Ex. P7. P. W. 7 Venu and Arumugham who were present attested Ex. P7 and P8, Accused 2 and 4 surrendered in court on 11/12/1984. On requisition made by Inspector, the material objects concerned in the case were sent for chemical examination through court and the Chemical Examiners report Ex. P. 10 and Serologist Report Ex. P11 were obtained. After completing investigation P. W. 13 had filed the final report against the accused before the committal court on 19/2/1985. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge had examined the accused on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They have denied the same. They did not examine any witness on their side. P11 were obtained. After completing investigation P. W. 13 had filed the final report against the accused before the committal court on 19/2/1985. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge had examined the accused on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They have denied the same. They did not examine any witness on their side. ( 10 ) MR. N. T. Vanamamalai, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that P. W. 12, the Sub Inspector, had first examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, but copies of the same were not furnished to the accused and this had caused prejudice to them. He would further contend that the eye witnesses are from far away places and that their presence at the time of occurrence is open to grave doubt. He would also-contend that the version given to the doctor regarding the occurrence is totally at variance with the version now presented in court and that would show that present version is not true. He finally submitted that in any event, the occurrence took place due to monentary angel and hence the offence committed would not be one punishable under section 302, I. P. C. We have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on all these aspects. ( 11 ) WE have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. In support of his contention that if prejudice is caused because of non-supply of copies of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer at the initial stages, the trial should be considered as vitiated. Mr. MT. Vanamamalai relied upon Baliram Tikaram v. Emperor. In it, the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court has observed as follows: section 162, Criminal Procedure Code was amended so as to arm an accused person with a right to call for the statements, if reduced to writing, whether in extenso or in a compressed form, in direct or indirect narration, so as to enable him to use them under section 145, Evidence Act, for cross-examination of the witnesses concerned. The object of the section is to protect the accused both against over-zealous police officers and untruthful witnesses:see Emperor v. Afrab Mohd. Khan; (A. I. R. 1940 All. 291 at page 299 ). The statements recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be used at the trial for any purpose except the cross-examination by the accused. The object of the section is to protect the accused both against over-zealous police officers and untruthful witnesses:see Emperor v. Afrab Mohd. Khan; (A. I. R. 1940 All. 291 at page 299 ). The statements recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be used at the trial for any purpose except the cross-examination by the accused. The denial to the accused of the benefit of these statements is tantamount to a departure from the mode of trial prescribed by law. It is these considerations which have compelied the Courts to quash the convictions in all those cases in which there was refusal to supply to copies of the police statements. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan In that case, the main contention of the appellant before the apex court was that under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it was obligatory upon an Investigating Officer to record the statements of witnesses examined by him and if such statements were not made available to the accused at the trial, valuable right was lost to the accused and the trial must on that account alone be regarded as vitiated. On that contention, the apex court has laid that where the circumstances are such that the court may reasonably infer that prejudice has resulted to the accused from the failure to supply the statements recorded under section 161, the court would be justified in directing that the conviction be set aside and in a proper case to direct that the defect be rectified in such manner as the circumstances may warrant. In cases, where the court is satisfied, having regard to the manner in which the case has been conducted and the attitude adopted by the accused in relation to the defect, that no prejudice has resulted to the accused that the court would, notwithstanding the breach of the statutory provisions, be justified in maintaining the conviction. In cases, where the court is satisfied, having regard to the manner in which the case has been conducted and the attitude adopted by the accused in relation to the defect, that no prejudice has resulted to the accused that the court would, notwithstanding the breach of the statutory provisions, be justified in maintaining the conviction. In this ruling, the apex court has considered Baliram Tikaram v. Emperor referred to supra and has said that does not correctly interpret sections 161 and 162 Code of Criminal Procedure by saying counsel for the appellant relying upon the two judgments of the Nagpur High Court in Baliram v. Emieror and Macianlal v. Emieror submitted that omission to surly cories of the statements recorded under section 161 is repugnant to the fundamental rules of practice necessary for the due protection of prisoners and the safe administration If justice, and where the accused was deprived of his statutory rights of cross-examination and thereby denied the opportunity of effectively destroying the testimony of prosecution witnesses the evidence of such witnesses whose statements have not been supplied to the accused is inadmissible at the trial. We are unable to accept this contention for in our view the law stated by the Nagpur High Court does not correctly interpret sections 161 and 162 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Mohanlal v. State of Maharashtra it was held that section 145 applies only to cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding. In Kottaya v. Emperor, on the facts of that case, it was held that no prejudice was caused to the accused because of non supply of the statements recorded by the Sub-Inspector in his note book, at an inquest before the Circle Inspector took over the investigation from the Sub-Inspector. In that case, the police Sub-Inspector held an inquest on the body of the deceased and examined some witnesses and wrote down their statements in his note book. Thereafter, the Circle Inspector took over the investigation from the Sub-Inspector. On the same day, he examined all the witnesses including all the witnesses who had been examined by the Sub Inspector and their statements were recorded in the case diary prepared by the Circle Inspector. Thereafter, the Circle Inspector took over the investigation from the Sub-Inspector. On the same day, he examined all the witnesses including all the witnesses who had been examined by the Sub Inspector and their statements were recorded in the case diary prepared by the Circle Inspector. The notes of the examination by the Circle Inspector were made available to the accused but the note book of the Sub Inspector was produced towards the end of the prosecution case, when the Sub-Inspector was in the witness box. It was held that there was a breach of the proviso to section 162 of the Code in that the entries in the Police Sub Inspectors note book were not made available to the accused, for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. But that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, since the statements of the witness were made available, though too late to be effective and as no point was made of any inconsistency between the statements made to the Police Sub Inspector and those made later in the day to the Circle Inspector, 110 prejudice has occasioned to the accused by the failure to produce in proper time the note book of the Police Sub Inspector and hence the trial was held valid not withstanding the breach of section 162, such breach being cured by section 537 of the Code. From the above pronouncements, the following principles emerge: (i) non-supply of statements recorded under section 161 (3) Criminal Procedure Code to the accused by itself would not vitiate the trial resulting in acquittal of the accused. (ii) But in cases where circumstances are such that the court may reasonably infer that prejudice has resulted to the accused from the failure to supply the statements recorded under section 161, the court will be justified in acquitting the accused. ( 12 ) WE shall first consider whether there was failure on the part of the prosecution to furnish copies of statements recorded by the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 12) during the course of investigation. P. W. 1 has stated in cross-examination that he did not state to the Investigation Officer that the Sub Inspector examined him at 2. 00 A. M. But Investigating Officer P. W. 13 has deposed that P. W. 1 had told him that the Sub-Inspector examined him at 2. 00 A. M. P. W. 2 is a hostile witness. P. W. 1 has stated in cross-examination that he did not state to the Investigation Officer that the Sub Inspector examined him at 2. 00 A. M. But Investigating Officer P. W. 13 has deposed that P. W. 1 had told him that the Sub-Inspector examined him at 2. 00 A. M. P. W. 2 is a hostile witness. P. W. 3 has stated in cross-examination that the Sub Inspector did not obtain statement from him and that he did not state to the Investigating Officer that he was examined by the Sub-Inspector. P. W. 13 has stated that P. W. 3 told him that he was also examined in the hospital and that his statement was recorded. P. W. 4 has admitted in Cross-examination that one. hour after admitting deceased Andal and P. W.) in the hospital, the Sub-Inspector had examine him. In Ex. P19, Express Alteration Report by virtue of which the case was altered as one for offence under section 302, I. P. C. the Sub Inspector bas mentioned that he went to the Government Hospital at Villupuram and examined Jayaraman (P. W. 1) and Lakshathipathi (P. W. 2) and obtained their statements. In it, he has also mentioned about his inspection of the scene place and examination of witnesses there. Thereafter he has stated that on examination of those witnesses it came to light that the incident leading to the occurrence had occurred. From the above pieces of evidence, it is clear that the Sub-Inspectorp. W. 12 who took up the initial investigation had examined these witnesses viz. ; P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and had recorded their statements. It was P. W. 12 who registered case in Crime No. 484/84 initially for offences under sections 341, 329, 325, 323 and 307, I. P. C. and he did the initial investigation. He had inspected the scene place and prepared observation mahazar and scene sketch and seized M. O. 2 under mahazar Ex. P3. Only, thereafter, the death intimation Ex. P16 was received at 8. 30 P. M. and then he altered the case as under section 302 I. P. C. and, thereafter, P. W. 13, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation. In the meanwhile, he had examined witnesses, as mentioned supra. Though he would say that by mistake he mentioned in Ex. P16 was received at 8. 30 P. M. and then he altered the case as under section 302 I. P. C. and, thereafter, P. W. 13, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation. In the meanwhile, he had examined witnesses, as mentioned supra. Though he would say that by mistake he mentioned in Ex. P 19 that he had examined P. W s. 1 and 2 and obtained their statements, the totality of the evidence available in this regard lead to the definite conclusion that he had examined P. W s. 1 to 4 and had recorded their statements under section. 161 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, But copies of the same were not furnished to the accused. This failure on the part of the prosecution to supply copies of the statements recorded by the Sub-Inspector from these material witnesses has deprived the accused to their valuable right to cross-examine these witnesses on the materials available in those statements. P. W. 1 has stated in cross-examination that she did not tell in the first statement that Dhanam and deceased Aridal went to Ulundandarkoil and advised Varadharajan not to give his daughter in marriage to accused No. 2. P. W. 4, another eye witness has admitted that at the time when he was examined by the Sub-Inspector, he did not tell him that this accused had assaulted whom and with what weapon. Thus in the statements given by P. Ws. 1 and 4 at an earlier point of time to the Sub Inspector, they have not mentioned certain very material aspects of the case. But in view of the failure on the part of the prosecution to furnish copies of statement recorded by Sub-Inspector, the relevant portions in the statements given by them to the Sub Inspector of Police could not be brought on record. That in turn, would necessarily result in causing prejudice to the accused. ( 13 ) MR. N. T. Vanammalai pointed out that the version give to the first doctor who had examined Aridal with regard to the mode of attack on her is totally different from the version now put forth by the prosecution. P. W: 10 Dr. Thularaman has stated that Andal was said to have been assaulted by 8 known persons with crow-bar and stick on 23/11/1984 at 6. 00 P. M. resulting in the injuries found on her. P. W: 10 Dr. Thularaman has stated that Andal was said to have been assaulted by 8 known persons with crow-bar and stick on 23/11/1984 at 6. 00 P. M. resulting in the injuries found on her. He would add that Andal was unconscious at that time. We would say that the person who had accompanied Andal had told him about the manner in which she had sustained these injuries. He has also deposed that Manohar, Raju, Dhandapani and Vadivel brought Andal to the hospital. In cross examination P. W. 10 has stated that those four persons viz. , Manohar Dhandapani Raju and Vadivel (P. W. 3) told him that 8 persons had assaulted Andal and so he had noted that version in Ex. P12. Vadivel is P. W. 3 and he claims to be a witness for the occurrence. From the evidence of the doctor, it is apparent that P. W 3 had also told the doctor that 8 known persons had assaulted Andal with crow-bar and stick and had caused those injuries. But his present version in court in accused No. 3 had beat Andal with M. O. 1 crow-bar, three times on her head. Only one person viz. , accused No. 3 is said to have assaulted deceased Andal with a crowbar. This version given in court is at variance with the version given to the doctor at the earliest point of time viz. , just about two hours after the occurrence. P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have admitted that doctor had enquired them as to how Andal had sustained those injuries. Though they would add that they did not tell the doctor that 8 person had assaulted Andal, the evidence of the Doctor which is vouched by the contemporaneous records viz. , the wound certificate Ex. P12 gives a different story viz. , that she was said to be assaulted by 8 known persons with crow-bar and stick. Now there is no, whisper that she was attacked with any stick. The prosecution is not able to explain as to how and why the different version was given to the doctor at the earliest point of time. The doctor is an independent government official and he is not interested either in the accused or in the prosecution party. Now there is no, whisper that she was attacked with any stick. The prosecution is not able to explain as to how and why the different version was given to the doctor at the earliest point of time. The doctor is an independent government official and he is not interested either in the accused or in the prosecution party. His evidence that he was informed by the person who had brought Andal that she was assaulted by 8 known persons with crowbar and stick cannot be brushed aside lightly. This version given to the doctor throws very grave doubt on the prosecution case now presented in court. ( 14 ) P. W. 1 Jayaraman is an injured witness. Regarding the injuries sustained by him, he has stated that while he rushed to the-scene place, scolding the accused, accused No. 4 caught hold of him while at the same time instigating the other accused to finish him off and at that time accused No. 2 snatched M. O. 1 from accused No. 3 and beat him in his left fore-arm and then again stabbed him on his fore-head and accused No. I beat him with fire-wood stick on his back. Thus on his own showing, three persons were involved in assaulting him, out of whom accused No. 4 had caught hold of him and accused No. 2 had beat him and as well stabbed him with crow-bar M. O. 1 and accused No. 1 had beat him with a firewood stick and thus the assault was with two weapons viz. , a crow-bar and stick. But the version given to the doctor was that P. W. I was assaulted by three known persons with crow-bar. Thus with regard to the number of persons involved in assaulting him and with regard to the weapons used, the version given to the doctor almost immediately after the occurrence is at variance with the version now presented in court. Here again, we find that the first version given to the doctor stares at the version now put forth by the prosecution and thus denuding it of all credibility. Mr. Here again, we find that the first version given to the doctor stares at the version now put forth by the prosecution and thus denuding it of all credibility. Mr. N. T. Vanammalai would contend that it may be that assault on Andal and the assault on P. W. I were by different persons at different times and so different versions with regard to the manner of attack on them had been given to the doctor who had examined them. We find force in this submission. Even these two versions given to the Doctor are at variance with the present versions. ( 15 ) MR. N. T. Vanammalai pointed out that the eye witnesses are not persons of the same street but they live in different streets and they are chance witnesses. P. W. 1 has admitted that Dhandapani, Lakshathipathi (p. W. 2), Manoharan and Vadivel (P. W. 3) do not live in the North Street and that they are living at a distance in different street. But they are portrayed as eye-witnesses. The learned senior counsel would submit that to present them as eye-witnesses, P. W. 1 was made to say that while he returned to his home after purchase of rice, these persons were standing and talking and when they proceeded to his home, they talked with him and came along with him to his house. The evidence of P. W. 1 does not disclose as to why they should stand there and talk with each other and then on seeing P. W. 1 begin to talk with him and come along with him to his house. No particular reason is given as to why they should be there. It is pertinent to note that P. W. 1 has not told the Investigating Officer that these witnesses were standing in the street and they went along with him talking with him to the vacant place east of his house. For the first time, he has deposed likewise in court. These eyewitnesses do not belong to that street and there is no particular occasion for them to be there at the time of occurrence. In view of. the above, their claim that they were present is open to grave doubt, particularly in view of the other evidence which we have mentioned supra. These eyewitnesses do not belong to that street and there is no particular occasion for them to be there at the time of occurrence. In view of. the above, their claim that they were present is open to grave doubt, particularly in view of the other evidence which we have mentioned supra. ( 16 ) REGARDING the assault on deceased Andal, P. W. 1 has stated that accused No. 3 had beat on her head twice with the crow-bar; whereas P. W. 3 has stated that he beat her thrice. P. W. 4 has stated that accused No. 3 beat her twice. The doctor had noted three injuries viz, three lacerated injuries and one tenderness in the sacral region. Here again there is no consistency. ( 17 ) THERE is also inordinate delay in the First Information Report reaching in the Judicial Magistrate. Ex. P17 is the Express Printed F. I. R. prepared on the foot of the First Information Report Ex. P1, Ex. P1 was recorded by the Head Constable on 23/11/1984 at 10. 00 P. M. Ex. PT and Ex. P17 had reached the Judicial Magistrate only on 24/11/1984 at 11. 00 A. M. According to P. W. 11 who recorded Ex. PT, since the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Villupuram Taluk Police Station, he sent it to that police station. According to P. W. 12, he received the message regarding this case at 1. 30 A. M. on 24/11/1984 and on the foot of Ex. PT and Ex. PIS, he registered case in Crime No. 484/84 for offences under section 307 and other offences and Ex. P7 is the Express Printed F. I. R. He sent the same to the court. The Judicial Magistrate is only at Villupuram. No explanation was offered by the prosecution for this delay. This delay assumes importance in view of other infirmities which we have pointed out earlier. ( 18 ) THE inconsistencies, infirmities and flaws which we have pointed out above go to the very root of the case and show that the case presented by the prosecution in court cannot be accepted. The prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against the appellants. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the above deficiencies and hence has given an erroneous finding with regard to these charges. The prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against the appellants. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the above deficiencies and hence has given an erroneous finding with regard to these charges. We have no hesitation to set aside this judgment ( 19 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and they are acquired. Appeal allowed.