V.Dutta Gyani, J. — This appeal arises out of judgment dated 7.9.93 delivered by Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.l01(T)/89 thereby convicting the appellant under sections 302/448 IPC and sentencing him to I undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 (three) months RI and 6 (six) months RI for an offence punishable under section 448 IPC. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, stated in brief, was that the accused and the complainant were residing in quarters of Namdang Colliery. They are neighbours. On 1st of Ivlarch, 1987, the accused committed criminal trespass by intruding ' into the quarter of deceased Subra Khatun and demanded money from her. As she refused, a heated exchange of words followed. The accused is alleged to have stabbed Subra Khatun resulting in following injuries : "(1) 22 cm long cut wound surgical stitched wound present in the abdomen from below the zyphoid process to obliquely towards right side. (2) Stab wound 2 x 2 /2 cm in size and 10 cm deep present on the right hypogastrium 13 cm below the right breast and 3 cm away from the midline, skin, muscles, peritoneum and liver are punctured. (3cm deep into the liver). (3) Stab wound 2 /2 x 1 cm x 8 cm deep situated 5 cm below and '/2 cm right to the injury No. 1. Skin, muscles, peritoneum and decorum is perforated. Direction is straight and to the posteriorly. Total length is 10 cm gap." 3. Md. Ali Hussain, the son of the deceased lodged an ejahar, Ext. 1 at Police Station, Margherita resulting in registration of a case under section 448/302 IPC. It was investigated by PW 6, the I/O. On completion of investigation, the accused was charged and tried for the above offences. His defence at the trial as can be gathered from his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC was that Ali Hussain, PW 3 was drunker and dishonest person. The appellant had an i altercation with him on money matters. It was Ali Hussain who wanted to stab the appellant but his mother, the deceased, came in between and suffered injury. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses to prove the charge including the IO, PW 6 and the doctor, PW 5 who performed post mortem examination. It was Ali Hussain who wanted to stab the appellant but his mother, the deceased, came in between and suffered injury. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses to prove the charge including the IO, PW 6 and the doctor, PW 5 who performed post mortem examination. PW 1 Padam Bahadur Magar turned hostile at the trial. PW 2 Hasina Begum is the daughter-in-law of the deceased while PW 3 Ali Hussain ' is the son and PW 4 is scribe of the ejahar. Thus, the prosecution case, really speaking, hinges on the testimony of PWs 2 and 3. The trial Court without even adverting to the explanation offered by the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC much less considering the same along with prosecution evidence found him guilty of the offence charged, essentially on the basis of evidence of PW 2 Hasina Begum and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. A Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, inviting attention to glaring contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 submitted that there was no legal evidence to sustain conviction. The investigation of the case was extremely partisan and perfunctory. The trial Court misappreciated the evidence to record conviction. Mr. Joginder Singh, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported appellant's conviction which according to him is well founded on reliable evidence. 6. Before dealing with the arguments advanced, it would not be out of place to note that even the trial Court has not found PW 2 to be wholly reliable. To quote from the impugned judgment: "I do not believe her statement that she saw the accused inflicting the dagger blows on the deceased. She must have left the place apprehending some danger and came back after the injuries were inflicted on the deceased. Her claim that she saw the accused attacking appears to be an exaggeration." Having recorded the above finding the learned Judge proceeds to observe : . "Any way, her evidence has proved that the accused who entered into a verbal duel with the deceased must be the man who caused the injuries on her body. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the injuries could have been caused due to some other causes." As for PW 3 Md. "Any way, her evidence has proved that the accused who entered into a verbal duel with the deceased must be the man who caused the injuries on her body. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the injuries could have been caused due to some other causes." As for PW 3 Md. Ali Hussain, the trial Court has held : "PW 3 is Md. Ali Hussain who lodged the ejahar, I disbelieve his deposition to the effect that he saw the accused-inflicting dagger blows on the deceased." 7. It was Ali Hussain who claims that he was sleeping at the moment when the occurrence took place and was awakened on hearing cries of his mother. The trial Court has disbelieved him on this point, saying : "He could not have been sleeping in such early hours of the night only to wake up hearing cries of his mother. He appears to have come after the occurrence." Having arrived at the above findings the trial Court concluded : "On the basis of the evidence of PW 2 summarised above. I find that it was the accused who caused the 2 stab wounds on the deceased. The wounds were on a vital part of the body, i.e. in the area round about and including the liver. I bus, the accused ;.-tended to cause the death of the victim though there was no instaneous death. Therefore, the accused has committed inside the house of the deceased." 8. Apart from the apparent incongruity of reasoning and conclusion, learned counsel urged that appellants conviction is based on quick sand and cannot stand scrutiny. Even according to the trial Court, all that the evidence of PW 2 goes to prove is that the accused was seen entering the house, and his entering into a 'verbal duel' (as used by the trial Court) with the deceased. It is on this basis that the learned Judge jumped the conclusion that the accused must be the man who caused the injuries to the deceased. 9. Before accepting the above conclusion so readily arrived at by the trial Court, a little more probing of facts is necessary. 10. On glaring fact having a material bearing on charge under section 448, it would be seen has been very dexterously suppressed by both PW 2 and for that matter by all the witnesses examined by the prosecution. 9. Before accepting the above conclusion so readily arrived at by the trial Court, a little more probing of facts is necessary. 10. On glaring fact having a material bearing on charge under section 448, it would be seen has been very dexterously suppressed by both PW 2 and for that matter by all the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The accused is no stranger, he is the real brother of the deceased. Whether entering the house of a sister without there being anything else, would constitute house trespass? Is not a brother ordinarily entitled to visit his sister. If the offence under section 302 IPC is laid aside for a while, what is there to hold the appellant a house trespasser? It is not so much for the ingredients of the offence as defined under section 441 IPC, but for the anxiety of the witnesses to suppress his relationship to the deceased that this point has been raised and discussed. It is in his statement under section 313 CrPC that the accused has stated that the deceased Subra Khatun was his sister. Reading the evidence of PW 2 and 3 it would be clear that he has been painted as an utter stranger to the house. 11. Now let us begin with the beginning, the FIR, Ext. 1, which reproduced below, itself gives rise to several questions : "To The Officer-in-Charge, Margherita Police Station, Dated 1st March, 1987. Sir, Humble submission is that on 28.2.87, at about 7.30 PM Md. Nasir Ahmed, a resident of Ketetong, entered my quarter at Namdang Colliery and, without any reason had an altercation and stabbed my mother twice in her abdomen with a knife, causing grievous injuries. I took my mother to Coal India Hospital for treatment where she died this first day of March, 1987 at about 5 AM. It is, therefore, prayed that the said accused be arrested and punished properly. Yours faithfully, LT I of Md. Ali Hussain, S/o Late Md.SherKhan, Namdang Colliery, Margherita, Date 1.3.87." 12. The first question is why this delay in lodging FIR? Was the son waiting for the death of his mother? Whether stabbing by itself was not a serious crime? Why did the police not seize and produce the treatment chart, bed-head ticket record from Coal India Hospital? Ali Hussain, S/o Late Md.SherKhan, Namdang Colliery, Margherita, Date 1.3.87." 12. The first question is why this delay in lodging FIR? Was the son waiting for the death of his mother? Whether stabbing by itself was not a serious crime? Why did the police not seize and produce the treatment chart, bed-head ticket record from Coal India Hospital? With what history, was she admitted to the hospital who admitted, or brought her to the hospital? The investigation is silent about it. What prevented the son from lodging a report immediately in the evening itself. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 10 Kms. If he could not go for one or the other reason, could have even informed on phone, if not from the colliery from the hospital itself where he had undoubtedly gone, with his mother. Even if the son failed to report the police, the hospital authorities must have, as indeed they did immediately on death of Subra Khatun. The investigation is silent about it. 13. A stranger entering into the house in the evening, stabbing an inmate of the house, with a dagger, what would be the natural human conduct of a Youngman present in the house. Ali Hussain, PW 3, the son of the deceased, as claimed by him was sleeping when his mother was stabbed. But he was awakened by the screams of his mother and wife, who raised hue and cry. The witness has further testified, "when I shouted the accused fled away leaving behind the dagger". He does not say that he chased the accused, or raised an alarm calling the neighbours absolutely no attempt on his part to nab the accused, not even supporting the injured mother, trying to prevent any further bleeding, he did nothing of the sort. No son, worth his name, would have behaved or conducted himself in the manner Md. Ali Hussain, PW 3 did. Even for hopsitalisation of his injured mother he does not say, that he took her to hospital. His statement is, 'my mother was taken to the hospital. If the hospital record had been produced it would have come to light as to who brought Subra Khatun to hospital, who got her admitted? What was the history of the patient given at the 'time of admission. His statement is, 'my mother was taken to the hospital. If the hospital record had been produced it would have come to light as to who brought Subra Khatun to hospital, who got her admitted? What was the history of the patient given at the 'time of admission. Really speaking there has been no investigation and whether little done was more calculated at suppression of truth rather than presenting unvarnished truth before the Court. It is the prosecution case that the police recovered the dagger from PW 3 as per seizure list Ext.3. The dagger was produced by Ali Hussain, it was blood stained and said to have been used by the accused. What prevented the police from sending it to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the IO has no explanation to offer. Apart from the blood group it would have helped in establishing the finger prints on its handle but the IO rests contend with more seizure of the incriminating article. Such seizure has to be pursued to its logical end, so as to connect it with the alleged crime but no steps have been taken to get the dagger chemically examined or by a finger print expert. This adversely reflects the investigation and reveal its perfunctory ness. 14. The dagger sheeth was also seized, seizure of articles particularly weapons and blood stained clothings is not a mere formality, its importance must be realised by the investigating agency and such articles must as a rule be further subjected to expert/chemical examination. 15. Ali Hussain, PW 3 had sustained a injury and he was forwarded by police for examination on 1.3.87, the day Subra Khatun died. On the same requisition form the doctor, who examined Ali Hussain, PW 3, submitted his report, it is reproduced in the marginal column : "1.3.87. Examined by me and injury report given (1) Incise injury over the palmer surface of the Rt middle finger, middle phalanx size !/2" x !4" x full skin deep. The injury is simple, recent and caused by sharp weapon. Sd/ Illegible Dr. UC Das, MS Senior Surgeon, CIL Hospital, Margherita". 16. What is surprising to note is that Ali Hussain in his evidence has suppressed this injury and it is not only Ali Hussain, even the IO has not only suppressed the document but also the fact. The injury is simple, recent and caused by sharp weapon. Sd/ Illegible Dr. UC Das, MS Senior Surgeon, CIL Hospital, Margherita". 16. What is surprising to note is that Ali Hussain in his evidence has suppressed this injury and it is not only Ali Hussain, even the IO has not only suppressed the document but also the fact. The investigation would have revealed the circumstances in which Ali Hussain sustained injury and incised wound. There is no answer provided either by Ali Hussain, PW 3 or the IO, PW 6. It is nothing but a calculated design to suppress the truth. 17. Now in the above context, let us examine the stand taken by the accused in reply to question No.2 as put to him, his answer was : "Ali Hussain is drunkard and a dishonest person. I had an altercation with Ali Hussain over monetary matter. The mother came in between us. Ali Hussain stabbed me (unintelligible). I don't know if it struck his mother's person. I spent night at (unintelligible - Tr), one and half mile away. Assuming that the police would arrest me. I appeared at the Court." 18. While it is true that the statements made by an accused cannot dislodge the evidence given On oath but it is equally true that it can be considered along with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The accused has explained the circumstances in his own way which stand probabilised by the calculated attempt on the part of both PW 3 and the investigating agency to suppress the truth particularly the injury sustained by PW 3 on his palm. It is not his case that he tried to grasp or seize it from the accused, nor is it the prosecution case then how can it that he sustained the injury on his palm. Why this concealment on the part of both? 19. It is not an isolated place. PW 1, who is a neighbour, though declared hostile, in his evidence has admitted that there are about 50/60 families residing in the same row within the distance of hardly 40 ft. Except him no other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW 4 is the son-in-law of the deceased, who is the scribe of the Ejahar, Ext 1. PW 1, who is a neighbour, though declared hostile, in his evidence has admitted that there are about 50/60 families residing in the same row within the distance of hardly 40 ft. Except him no other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW 4 is the son-in-law of the deceased, who is the scribe of the Ejahar, Ext 1. It is given in the evidence of PW 2 that the blood stained dagger was lying on the bed even the hostile witness PW 1 corroborates her to that extent. The investigation in the case is highly tainted and partisan, it is no part of the duty of the police officer to bolster up a false case. His duty is to place unvarnished truth before the Court as has been held by the Supreme Court in Jamuna Choudhury vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC. The Supreme Court in Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140 has stressed the need for sincere and dispassionate investigation which caution circumspection and deprecated fabrication of record by the Investigating Officer. In State of Bihar vs. PP Sarma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 , the Supreme Court pointed out the primary duty of the police to collect the evidence of commission of offence and observed : "The Investigating Officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. The police investigation is, .therefore, the foundation stone on which the whole edifice of criminal trial rests - an error in its chain of investigation may result in miscarriage of justice and the prosecution entails with acquittal. The duty of the Investigating Officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts, to extract truth from half truth or grabbled version, connecting the chain of events. Investigation is a tardy and tedious process. Enough power, therefore, has been given to the police officer in the area of investigatory process, granting him or her great latitude to exercise his discretionary power to make a successful investigation. It is by his action that law becomes an actual positive force. Often crimes are committed in secrecy with dexterity and at high places. Enough power, therefore, has been given to the police officer in the area of investigatory process, granting him or her great latitude to exercise his discretionary power to make a successful investigation. It is by his action that law becomes an actual positive force. Often crimes are committed in secrecy with dexterity and at high places. The Investigating Officer may have te-obtain information from sources disclosed or undisclosed and there is no set procedure to conduct investigation to connect every step in the chain of prosecution case by collecting the evidence except to the extent expressly prohibited by the Code or the Evidence Act or the Constitution. In view of the arduous task involved in the investigation he has been given free liberty to collect the necessary evidence in any manner he feels expedient, on the facts and in given circumstances. His/her primary focus is on the solution of the crime by intensive investigation. It is his duty to ferret out the truth. Laborious hard work and attention to the details, ability to sort out through mountainous information, recognised behavioural patterns and above all, to co-ordinate the efforts of different people associated with various elements of the crime and the case are essential. Diverse methods are therefore, involved in making a successful completion of the investigation." 20. Now adverting to the defence stand the accused has taken the plea that he had gone to his sister. He does not deny this fact but the altercation was with Ali Hussain on money matters and the type of man Ali Hussain is has also been described by the accused as drunkard and dishonest. It was Ali Hussain, who tried to stop him. The attack of Ali Hussain and the tainted nature of investigation has already been discussed above. It is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case. It is sufficient if the defence succeed in creating a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution version. In the instant case the defence has succeeded in creating a reasonable doubt, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge, and the tainted and partisan nature of investigation has further added to it. 21. In the instant case the defence has succeeded in creating a reasonable doubt, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge, and the tainted and partisan nature of investigation has further added to it. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court against the appellant cannot be allowed to stand it is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He be set at liberty forthwith.