Judgment :- Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. In S.C.No.25 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, Periyar District, the appellant was charged and tried for the offences under Sections.302 and 309 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and simple imprisonment for six months respectively on an allegation that on 23-2-1990 at about 10.00 a.m. at Kolakadu of Madathupalayam Village, within the limits of Gundadam Police Station, the appellant Muthan @ Nambian stabbed the deceased Amassai with a knife and caused her dealt and that thereafter he attempted to commit suicide by stabling himself on his abdomen with the same knife. 2. To substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, filed Exs.P-1 to P-15 and marked M.Os. 1 to 26. On the side of the defence, Ex. D-1 was marked. 3. The prosecution case, as discerned from the evidence brought on record, could be summarised as follows: The deceased Amassai of 35 years old, was the second wife of P.W.8 Nachimuthu. One Nachimuthu, son of P.W. 2 Karuppan, got married one Nachammal, daughter of P.W.8, through his first wife Palniammal. One Malliga daughter of the appellant, got married one Palanisamy, another son of P.W.8. 4. These witnesses and the appellant are the residents of madathupalayam Village, P.W.2 Karuppan owns 84 cents of land at Kolakadu. Out of these 84 cents P.W.2 leased out 42 cents to one Govindaswamy Navithan, who in turn sub-leased the said lands to P.W.8. These lands were jointly cultivated by P.W.8, Ammasai and the appellant. 5. The Appellant Muthan and the deceased Ammasai developed illicit intimacy. On knowing this, P.W.8 Nachimuthu objected and warned her not to have any illicite intimacy with the appellant. But both deceased and the appellant did not pay heed to his words. In the land of 42 cents cultivated by P.W.8, the appellant and deceased Ammasi sowed cow pea (thattaipayiru). After harvest, the cow peas were collected and sold in the market in retail for Rs.300. The appellant did not return this amount to P.W.8. So, P.W.2 asked the deceased Ammasai to collect that amount from the appellant or otherwise she could not enter into the house. Then the deceased Ammasai consoled him that the accused would return the money within a week after selling his cow in the market. However, the accused is not care to give back the amount. So, P.W.2 asked the deceased Ammasai to collect that amount from the appellant or otherwise she could not enter into the house. Then the deceased Ammasai consoled him that the accused would return the money within a week after selling his cow in the market. However, the accused is not care to give back the amount. So again P.W.8 threatened Ammasai that if the said sum is not given within a week, she would be sent out of the house. In this situation, the fateful time fell on 23-2-1990 at about 10.00 a.m. At 08.00 a.m. on that day, the deceased carried with her, food, M.O.5 plastic bag and M.O.6 series - three bags and went to the land for the purpose of plucking cow peas. In the neighbouring land, P.W.2 Karuppan was also engaged in plucking cow peas. At that point of time at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.2 heard a cry from Ammasai as ‘???’ Immediately thereafter P.W.2 ran towards the place of occurrence and saw the deceased in a pool of blood with her intestines protruding out from her stomach. She was found dead. In the western portion, the accused also was found lying on the floor with the bleeding injuries on his stomach with his intestines coming out of his body. At that time, he was groaning. Immediately, thereafter P.W. 2 went to P.W.8 and informed this incident. Then, as instructed by P.W. 8, P.W. 2 went to the village administrative Officer P.W.1 Vetrivelu and narrated to him as to what he had seen. 6. At 1.30 p.m., P.W.1, along with P.W.2 and one Raman, Village Thandal, went to the spot. He found the deceased dead and the accused lying with bleeding injuries gasping for life. The accused requested them to give him water. Raman brought the water, which the accused drank. Thereafter, he gained full consciousness. Then he gave his statement confessing that he stabbed the deceased and caused her death and them he attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself. This was reduced into writing by P.W.1 and accused’s thumb impression was obtained thereon after reading over the same to the accused. Then, P.W. 1 prepared his own report Ex. P2. He went to the Kundadam Police station at 2-30 p.m. after leaving P.W.2 and Raman there itself. At about 2.30 p.m. P.W. 1 handed over Ex.P-1 and his report Ex.P2. Then, P.W. 1 prepared his own report Ex. P2. He went to the Kundadam Police station at 2-30 p.m. after leaving P.W.2 and Raman there itself. At about 2.30 p.m. P.W. 1 handed over Ex.P-1 and his report Ex.P2. P.W.7 Ramalingam, Sub-Inspector of Police, received Exs. P-1 and P-2 and registered the case in Crime No.63 of 1990 for the offences under Section 302 and 309 Indian Penal Code. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P-7. he sent all these documents to the Court as well as to the Senior officers. At 3.45 p.m. P.W.1 and P.W.7 came to the spot and arranged to sent the accused, who was in a critical condition, to the Dharapuram Govt. Hospital through P.W.9 Constable along with requisition Ex. P-5. 7. P.W. 13, Inspector of Police on receipt of the message, came to the Kundadam Police Station at 3.15 p.m. He took up further investigation and reached the place of occurrence at 04.00 p.m. He prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P-3 and rough sketch Ex. P-14. He arranged to take photographs through Photographer. M.O.25 series is the Photographs and M.O.26 series is the negatives. Then at 4.30 p.m. P.W.13 recovered M.O.1 blood stained knife, M.O.2 pair of chappals, M.O.3 white towel M.O.4 bloodstained cream colour turkey towel, M.O.5 plastic bag containing cow peas, M.O.6 series three gunny bags M.O.7 Atlas Cycle, M.O.8 Bloodstained earth from the place where the accused was lying M.O.9 sample earth from the same place, M.O.10 bloodstained earth and M.O.1 1 sample earth from the same place where the body of the deceased was lying, M.O.12 clotted blood from the same place where the deceased was lying and M.O.13 sample earth from that place under Ex.P-4 mahazar. Between 05.00 p.m. and 07.00 p.m. he held inquest and examined P.Ws.1,2 and others. The inquest report is Ex. P-15. Then sent he the dead body through P.W.10 Constable along with the requisition Ex. P-8. 8. In the mean time, P.W. 9, took the accused/injured to the Dharapuram Government Hospital at 4 ‘O’ clock. There he was given first aid. From there, on the reference by the Doctor P.W. 3 he was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at about 7-10 p.m. From the accused P.W. 9 recovered M.O.14, M.O.15 and M.O.16 clothes of the accused and handed over the same to the Police Station. P.W.3 Dr.Mallika Swaminathan issued Ex.P-6 wound certificate. There he was given first aid. From there, on the reference by the Doctor P.W. 3 he was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at about 7-10 p.m. From the accused P.W. 9 recovered M.O.14, M.O.15 and M.O.16 clothes of the accused and handed over the same to the Police Station. P.W.3 Dr.Mallika Swaminathan issued Ex.P-6 wound certificate. She found the following injuries on the accused. 1. Clear cut injury measuring about 2 cm. X Half cm X half c.m. above the umblicus. 2. Another cut injury extremely just above the first injury loops bowel omentum 7 cm X 1 cm bowel punctured and sutured above. Greater Omentum of stomach transverse coin, Omentum portend out. 3. Injury 2 cm x 1 cm incised wound above the 2nd wound linear tear. III part of duodenum in the gall bladder sutured (N.C.) P.W. 3 was of the opinion that the injuries were grievous in nature and then referred him to the Coimbatore Hospital, as referred above. 9. Then P.W.4, the Doctor working in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, admitted the accused on 23-2-90 at about 7-10 p.m. in the ward. At 8-00 p.m. on 23-2-90. P.W. 12 Dr. Musthiri Begum working in the Dharapuram Govt. Hospital, received the requisition Ex.P-19 sent by P.W. 13 along with the dead body from P.W. 10 Constable. On 24-9-90 at 10-00 a.m. she commenced postmortem and found the following injuries on the deceased; 1. An oblique incised wound extending from the pit of the stomach for a point 1” Right to the unblicus 6”x4” through which small large intestines are extruding out. 2. An oblique incised wound extending from 1 “ below the middle of right axilla to middle of Right phypochondrium 6”x2”x1”. 3. A Stab wound 1” below the injury No.2”, 2”x1” enters into the abdominal cavity. 4. The parallel incised wounds 3”x1”x1” over the front of right wrist joint. 5. An incised wound on the palmar surface of the tip of the right thumb 6. An incised wound at the dorsum of the left thumb 1” x 1/2” x 1/2”. 7. A stab wound 1”x1” left side of chest in 5th intercostal space in mid-clavicular line entering into the thoracic cavity. 8. Incised wound in the lower part of the middle of the left side back 2” x 1/2” x 1/2”. On opening of the abdomen:- Peritorical cavity contentions one liter of fluid blood. 7. A stab wound 1”x1” left side of chest in 5th intercostal space in mid-clavicular line entering into the thoracic cavity. 8. Incised wound in the lower part of the middle of the left side back 2” x 1/2” x 1/2”. On opening of the abdomen:- Peritorical cavity contentions one liter of fluid blood. On exploration of injury No.1 the stomach, small of large intestines are lacerated. Partially digested food particles of rice present. Liver: Upper surface of right lobe lacerated corresponding to injury No. 3 1” x 1” x 1/2” pale, 990 grms Spleen:- Pale, 70 grams, Kidneys:- Right 100 grams, Left: 110 grams, C/s. Pale. Intestines :- fluid present. Uterus: Normal. Blader :- empty. No injury to the skull bones. Brain: 1130 grams, pale, Spinal Cord: Spine, pelvic Column, normal. On opening the thorax organs normal imposition. Left plural cavity contains 1000 ml of fluid blood. Anterior surface of the middle of the limbs. Left lung injured 1” x 1” x 1” Wt. Left: 320 grams, Right Lung- Normal 370 gram, Heart: Middle of left atrium is penetrated. Chambers empty Wt.270 grams. Deceased would appear to have died 22 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. She issued the postmortem certificate Ex. P-13 and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to vital organs, Heart, liver and lungs. 10. P.W.10 Constable, recovered M.O.17 saree, M.O.18, blouse, M.O.19, “Thali Kayiru” M.O.20 brass chain, M.O.21 series ‘Kaal Metti’ M.O.22 Iron ring. M.O.23 plastic bangles and M.O.24 petticoat from the body of the deceased and handed over them in the police station. P.W.13, on receipt of all the Material objects, sent the same on 23-3-1990 to the Court with Ex.P-9 requisition to send them for chemical analysis. P.W.11, Shahul Hameed, working as a Head Clerk in the Dharapuram Judicial Magistrate Court, received M.Os. along with the requisition sent by P.W. 13 and sent the same on 23. 1990 along with Ex. P. 10 requisition from the Magistrate for the chemical analysis. The chemical analyst’s report dated 18-4-190, Ex.P-11, was received by the Court on 23-4-1990. The Serologist’s report dated 17-12-1990, Ex.P-12, was received by the Court on 26-12-1990. 11. On 9-3-1990 at about 06.00 p.m. P.W.7 arrested the appellant. who was discharged from the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and sent him for the Judicial remand on 10-3-1990. The chemical analyst’s report dated 18-4-190, Ex.P-11, was received by the Court on 23-4-1990. The Serologist’s report dated 17-12-1990, Ex.P-12, was received by the Court on 26-12-1990. 11. On 9-3-1990 at about 06.00 p.m. P.W.7 arrested the appellant. who was discharged from the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and sent him for the Judicial remand on 10-3-1990. On 10-3-1990, P.W.13 sent a requisition to the Court to record the confession statement of the appellant under Sec. 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. P.W.6, the Magistrate, after observing the formalities, recorded the statement given by the accused on 28-3-90. The statement is Ex.D-1. P.W.-14, the successor Inspector, took up further investigation and filed a charge sheet against the appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 309 Indian Penal Code before the committal Court. 13. On committal, the learned sessions Judge framed charges as referred above and examined the witnesses. 14. After the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the incriminating circumstances found against the appellant in the evidence on record. The appellant denied his complicity in the Crime. He went on to add Ammasai, that on several occasions, though he demanded for the return of the same, they did not give back the amount, that due to that, there was a quarrel, that subsequently P.W.8 intimidated him that he would beat him, that on the date of occurrence at about 9-30 a.m. when he went to the land, the deceased Ammasai asked him to come to the land in order to assist her in the process of plucking the cow peas and that when he was doing so, the deceased suddenly took out a knife and stabbed him, due to which he fell down and got fainted, that he did not know what happened subsequently and that he gained consciousness only after 16 days at the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence except marking Ex.D-1. 15. After the trial, the trial court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections.302 and 309 Indian Penal code and dealt with him as referred above. Against the said Judgment, the present appeal has been resorted to by the appellant. 16. Mrs. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence except marking Ex.D-1. 15. After the trial, the trial court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections.302 and 309 Indian Penal code and dealt with him as referred above. Against the said Judgment, the present appeal has been resorted to by the appellant. 16. Mrs. Bhagirathi Rangarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence and strenuously contended that the statement Ex.P-1 the alleged extra-Judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.1, was a concoled one, that it was not prepared at the place and time as spoken to by the prosecution, that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be said to be reliable, and that the statement Ex.P-1 also cannot be considered to be one, which was given voluntarily. She further contended that when the appellant gave a statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure to the Magistrate as early as 28-3-1990, he had stated that he was stabbed by the deceased, due to which he fell down and that he did not commit any offence, that the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure given by the accused before the trial Court also confirms the same and as such the statement of the accused, which are consistent, can be acted upon and that in view of the infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 which is quite artificial having elaborate details, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 17. Per contra, Mr. Shanmugasundaram, learned Public Prosecutor, countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that Ex.P-1, the extra judicial confession made before P.W.1 by the appellant immediately after the occurrence alone would be sufficient to base the conviction, and that the reading of Ex.P-1 would reveal that the statement was true, voluntary and reliable one. He further contended that though Ex.P-1 is a piece of weak evidence, if it is found to be reliable the court can base the conviction solely upon the said extra-judicial confession as per the judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 18. We have carefully scrutinised the rival contentions urged by the counsel on either side. He further contended that though Ex.P-1 is a piece of weak evidence, if it is found to be reliable the court can base the conviction solely upon the said extra-judicial confession as per the judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 18. We have carefully scrutinised the rival contentions urged by the counsel on either side. Even at the out set, we must mention that the prosecution relies upon a sole and single piece of evidence viz., the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.1 which lacks evidenciary value in law. Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of practice reads as follows : The village Magistrates are absolutely prohibited from reducing to writing any confession or statement whatever made by an accused person after the police investigation has begun. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case Ex.P-1 was recorded by P.W.1 on the statement given by the appellant at 1.30 p.m. on 23-2-90 whereas P.W.7 registered the case at 2.30 p.m. in Crime No.63 of 1990, only after which, the investigation had commenced, and as such it could not be said that the statement given by the appellant at 1.30 p.m. was recorded after the investigation was commenced. We are not inclined to accept this submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor for the following reasons. 19. No doubt, it is true that P.W.1 deposed that he recorded the statement from the accused at 1-30 p.m. and then he handed over the same along with the report Ex.P-2 to P.W.7 Sub Inspector of Police at 2-30 p.m. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the fact that P.W.2 karuppan. on which information P.W.1 went to the spot, clearly admits in his cross examination that P.W.1 recorded the statement Ex.P-1 from the accused in the presence of the police officers. Of course, P.W.7 denies the suggestion made to that effect. But the evidence of P.W.8 would spell out that police officers were already there when he went to the spot along with P.W.7. It is also quite relevant to note that even, to P.W.1 a suggestion was put that a statement was recorded and that the accused’s thumb impression was obtained thereon by P.W.1 with the help of the police officers at the Govt. Hospital. It is also quite relevant to note that even, to P.W.1 a suggestion was put that a statement was recorded and that the accused’s thumb impression was obtained thereon by P.W.1 with the help of the police officers at the Govt. Hospital. It is also suggested that only at 07.00 p.m. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P-2 report as advised by the police. Of course, these suggestions have been denied. But one important aspect that we could see from the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross examination, is the following 23-2-90 When the prosecution case itself was suggested in the cross examination it is curious to note that P.W.1 denied the same. Further more, Ex.P-1 is found to be written by ballpoint pen whereas Ex.P-2 report has been written with the help of a pen with a different ink. It shows that the documents, extra judicial confession and the separate report by P.W.1, have been separately prepared. So, in the light of above, we cannot rule out the possibility, that these documents have been prepared at different times only at the instance of the police officers. 20. During the course of cross examination P.W.7 emphatically denied the suggestion that Dharmapuram Police personnel were also present when P.W.7, along with P.W.8, went to the spot and that Dharmapuram Police personnel obtained the statement from the appellant, which has been suppressed since the contents of the same were against the case of the prosecution. Though this suggestion was denied by P.W.7 P.W.8 admits that Dharmapuram Police personnel were present at the spot at the relevant time. The evidence of P.W. 11, the court Head Clerk, would show that these Exs.P-1 and P-2 along with the printed First Information Report Ex.P-7, were received by the Court only at 9-30 p.m. on 23. 1990. So, in the light of the above factors, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that all these documents Exs.P-1 P-2 and P-7 prepared at the later point of time as per the instruction of the police officers and then the same have been sent to the Court. It is also clear that these documents have been prepared only after the commencement of the investigation. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that Ex.P-1 extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon in view of Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. It is also clear that these documents have been prepared only after the commencement of the investigation. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that Ex.P-1 extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon in view of Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. This position of law has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court long back in Lakshmanan in Re, 1971 LW (Crl) 9. Following this, another Division Bench of this Court in Raju & Others v. State , 1995 (2) LW (Crl.) 513 held that Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice points out that the Village Administrative officer should not record any confession or statement whatever made by the accused since the introduction of this clause was intended to prevent false extra-judicial confessions being secured through the help of village Munsifs by the police after the commencement of the investigation. It is also held in the said decision that the extrajudicial confession itself is a weak piece of evidence and its value becomes less when it is obtained by a person in the position of a Village Munsif, after investigation by the police had started. So, as such, we hold, in view of Rule 72 of Crl. Rules of Practice, that we cannot attach any importance to the statement Ex. P-1 recorded by P.W.1 from the appellant. 21. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this extra-judicial confession recorded in this case was recorded prior to the commencement of investigation, we should say that Ex.P-1, which suffers from various infirmities, is not a reliable one. A combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 would make it clear that the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy. It is stated by P.W.1 that he went to the spot along with P.W. 2 Karuppan and Raman, village Thandal, at about 1.30 P.M. P.W. 2 would state that he was throughout at the spot taking case of the dead body and the injured accused till the police came and made arrangements for sending the accused to the Hospital. But P.W. 8 would say that he, along with P.W.2 went to the P.W. 1 informed this incident and both P.Ws.8 and 2 went to the police station and brought the police to the spot. So, this shows that P.W.1 would not have gone to the police station at all. But P.W. 8 would say that he, along with P.W.2 went to the P.W. 1 informed this incident and both P.Ws.8 and 2 went to the police station and brought the police to the spot. So, this shows that P.W.1 would not have gone to the police station at all. Even in Ex.P-2, P.W.1 stated like this : So, this shows that these Exs.P-1 and P-2 were not handed over by P.W.1 in person to P.W.7. Moreover, Ex.P-1 contains elaborate details, the reading of which would show that the accused would not have given the details at the relevant time when he was struggling for life with bleeding injuries with his intestines coming out of the stomach. The normal conduct of any person, especially of a person like P.W.1, a Village Administrative officer, would be, on seeing the dead body and a person with bleeding injuries, to take immediate arrangements, to take the injured person to the hospital and save his life. In fact P.W.1 says that near the place of occurrence, there is a Mill in which telephone facility was available. It is also admitted that Dharapuram Hospital was nearby. P.W. 13 also would say that the telephone facilities were available in the Police station. So, as a Public servant, the Village Administrative Officer, the thing which P.W.1 ought to have done was that he must have immediately informed the police through phone and arranged for taking the accused to the hospital to save his life. He has not done so in this case. So, all these things put together would make it clear that P.W.1 has not come out with the truth and these documents, as suggested by the defence, must have been prepared at the instance of the police only in the evening at the Hospital. In the light of these, cannot hold that Ex.P-1, the extra- judicial confession, which is a weak piece of evidence, can be said to be a true and voluntary one. At this juncture, we cannot but mention about Ex.D-1, recorded on 26-3-90, and the statement by the accused before the Sessions Court under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded on 25-7-91 which would reveal that there is consistency in the statement of the accused. But whatever it is, the prosecution must stand on its own legs to prove its case. But whatever it is, the prosecution must stand on its own legs to prove its case. But in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences with which the appellant was charged, beyond doubt. So, in view of the above dismissal features and suspicious factors, we are inclined to hold that there is no acceptable and admissible materials available on record to base the conviction. As such the appellant is deserved to be acquitted. 22. It is also brought to our notice that the appellant is still in jail and is undergoing imprisonment for the past 7 years. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below are set aside. The accused is acquitted of all the Charges. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.