Judgment : R. Balasubramanian, J. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1986 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Anna District, Dindigul, is the appellant before this Court in this appeal. 2. The accused was tried by the trial court for an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. and the learned trial Judge after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, found him guilty for the offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, which judgment, is questioned in this appeal. 3. The deceased is the husband of P.W.1. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 4. 1986 at or about 10 o’Clock in the night. The accused/ appellant is the son of P. W. 1 and the deceased. It is seen that besides the accused, P.W.1 and the deceased had three more daughters and two of whom were already married. In other words, on the date of the occurrence, P.W.1 the deceased, the accused and another unmarried daughter Selvi were stated to be residing in the house of the deceased. As spoken to by P.W.1, the deceased used to taking alcohol and he was weak towards the opposite sex. Under the influence of alcohol, without self-control, irrespective of the time during the day, he used to call P.W.1 for sharing the bed. This was often objected to by P.W.1 and also by the accused on the ground that his conduct of calling his wife to share the bed at any time he likes, especially, in the presence of the children, may not be good. On 4. 1986, according to P.W.1, she was sleeping inside the house after taking food. According to her the accused Murugan, who was previously employed in Kerala came back to Kodaikanal and he was also staying with them. At about 10 o’clock in the night, the deceased was found under the influence of alcohol and in that background, he called his wife to share the bed with him. P. W. 1 is stated to have told him that the children are awake and that therefore, it will not be good to yield to the request of the deceased. P.W.1 says that the accused who was present at that time also protested it. Even a little before, the deceased in order to have his lust satisfied, wanted his son to go and watch the field. P.W.1 says that the accused who was present at that time also protested it. Even a little before, the deceased in order to have his lust satisfied, wanted his son to go and watch the field. The son, namely, the accused, is stated to have refused to obey his command. The deceased also sent his unmarried daughter at that part of the night to the field to drive away the pigs, which are likely to destroy the crops and the daughter is stated to have gone in obedience to the order of the father. Since the deceased persisted in his attitude to have P.W.1 in his bed at that part of the night, the accused protested it. At that time, a wordy duel arose between the deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other hand. Agitated at this, the accused is stated to have taken an axe, marked as M.O.1 in this case, and attacked the deceased. 4. P.W.2 claims that he was also doing the watching work in the field of the deceased and he was also in the house at or about the same time. He also says that the deceased wanted the accused and P.W.2 to go out to the field and do watching work in the fields. According to P.W.2, the accused refused the request of the deceased to go to the field and that therefore, he was also staying in the house at that time. According to P.W.2, he saw the accused taking M.O.1 axe and attacking the deceased on the neck. Immediately, he got frightened and the accused has stated to this witness that if he stays there, he will also be attacked. Fearing danger to his personal safety, P.W.2 claims to have left the place immediately. 5. P.W.1 further states that his son, the accused indiscriminately attacked the deceased, her husband with M.O.1. Though P.W.1 raised alarm, the accused pushed her aside and indiscriminately cut his father and the deceased after receiving the injuries died on the spot. It is her further case that Selvi, her daughter who had gone to the field, came a little later and came to know what had happened. The accused is stated to have left the place with the axe in his hand. On the next day morning, P.W.1 sent word to her neighbour and as a result, the neighbours came. It is her further case that Selvi, her daughter who had gone to the field, came a little later and came to know what had happened. The accused is stated to have left the place with the axe in his hand. On the next day morning, P.W.1 sent word to her neighbour and as a result, the neighbours came. She also told one Ponniah Thevar, who has been examined as P.W.4, as to what had happened. On the advice of P.W.4, P.W.1 accompanied him to the police station and gave a statement Ex.P-6 to the Sub Inspector of Police, who reduced it into writing and on the basis of which, he registered a case in Kodaikanal P.S. Cr.No.7 of 1986 for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. 6. P.W.4 Ponniah Thevar had stated that he is residing in Muthappankattu Odai on the west of Mayandi Thevar’s house. His evidence is that about a year back to his giving evidence, when he was going to Pannaikadu, he saw the deceased Mayandi Thevar lying dead near his house. He claims to have accompanied P.W.1 to the police station and that P.W.1 gave a statement to the police and it was recorded to her narration. 7. P.W.9 was working as the Sub Inspector of Police at the Kodaikanal Police Station during the relevant time and at about 6 p.m. on 4. 1986 P.W.1 appeared in the police station and gave a statement. P.W.9 recorded the statement to her narration, marked as Ex.P-6. As already stated, he registered a case in Crime Number 71 of 1986. Thereafter, he prepared the express first information report and sent it to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nilakottai. Ex.P-7 is the express F.I.R. He also sent the copies of the same to the concerned authorities. 8. P.W.11 who was working as Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal, received the express F.I.R. in this case on 4. 1986 through Grade I Constable 1221 and took up investigation at 5.45 p.m. on the same day. He went to Thethuparai and as it was late night he stayed there. On 4. 1986 at 6 a.m. he went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.11 then prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-1 attested by P.W.5 and another, P.W.11 then prepared rough sketch Ex.P-13 at 6.15 a.m. He also seized M.O.2 blood stained earth and ordinary earth M.O.3 under a mahazar Ex.P-2 attested by P.W.5 and another. On 4. 1986 at 6 a.m. he went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.11 then prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-1 attested by P.W.5 and another, P.W.11 then prepared rough sketch Ex.P-13 at 6.15 a.m. He also seized M.O.2 blood stained earth and ordinary earth M.O.3 under a mahazar Ex.P-2 attested by P.W.5 and another. P.W.11 thereafter conducted inquest over the corpse between 6.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. and examined the witnesses. Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. P.W.11 entrusted the body to P. W.8 for taking it to the hospital for conduct of post mortem along with a requisition. P.W.8 handed over the dead body to the Medical Officer and was present during the time of post mortem examination. He seized the trou-ser M.O.4 and the blanket M.O.5 from the body of the deceased and produced at the police station. 9. P.W.7 the Medical Officer attached to Kodaikanal Hospital, conducted autopsy over the dead body on 4. 1986 at 1 p.m. The autopsy was conducted on the basis of a requisition sent by P.W.11 the Inspector of Police, During autopsy, the Medical Officer found the following injuries: 1. Abrasion in the left knee joint 1 cm x 1 cm. 2. Abrasion in the left ankle joint 1 cm x 1/2 cm. 3. A cut injury 2 cm above the right eye-brow 3 cm x 2 cm. 4. A cut injury 1 cm above the left eye-brow 1 cm x 1 cm. 5. A cut injury in the left cheek 1 cm below the left eye ball 2 cm x 2 cm. Head: a. A cut injury about 4 cm x 2 cm in the left anterior parietal area exposing the parietal bone. .b. A cut injury about 3 cm x 1 cm in the left posterior parietal area exposing the parietal bone. .c. A cut injury about 5 cm x 2 cm in the right anterior parietal area involving the parietal bone. .d. A cut injury about 6 cm x 4 cm in the vertex. .e. A cut injury about 5 cm x 3 cm above the hair line in the mid frontal area. .f. Right ear cut into two pieces. Neck: 1. In the nape of the neck, a deep cut injury 4 cm length x 2 cm breadth x 3 cm depth tapering end on the left side exposing the deeper muscles, vessels and nerves. 2. .f. Right ear cut into two pieces. Neck: 1. In the nape of the neck, a deep cut injury 4 cm length x 2 cm breadth x 3 cm depth tapering end on the left side exposing the deeper muscles, vessels and nerves. 2. Another cut injury 1 cm below the above said first one about 2 cm length x 1 cm breath x 1 cm depth slightly crossing the mid line with tapering end in the left side. 3. A deep cut injury 2 cm below the 2nd injury oblique 7 cm length x 5 cm breadth x 8 cm in depth tapering end on the shoulder blade, cutting on the deeper tissue and 06 07 interverteberal disc." On internal examination, he found supra scapular muscle, extrinsic muscles of the neck, tripizees muscle, supra scapular artery, ventricle artery, and nerves are cut and damaged in the neck. Hyoid bone intact. No fracture of ribs. The doctor has stated that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries in the head and back of the neck. Ex.P-5 is the post mortem certificate issued by him. He has opined that the injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged hard weapon like M.O.1. Abrasions could have been caused by coming into contact with rough surface. The Medical Officer was of the opinion that injury number 3 to 7 found on the body of the deceased with the corresponding internal injury is necessarily fatal and will cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that except injury number 1 and 2 all other injuries could have been caused by cutting with a weapon like M.O.1. 10. P.W.11 the Inspector of Police, on 4. 1986 at about 12 noon arrested the accused near Manavanoor sign board in the presence of P.W.6 the Village Administrative Officer. At that time, the accused is stated to have volunteered a confessional statement that if he is taken to Orali gazem, he would take and produce the axe with which he cut his father. Ex.P-3 is the admissible portion of the confessional statement leading to the recovery of M.O.1. Accordingly, the accused had taken the Inspector to Barathi Anna Nagar and took out from the Orali gazem pit the axe and H.W.11 seized M.O.1 under an athatchi Ex.P-4 attested by P.W.5 and another witness. Ex.P-3 is the admissible portion of the confessional statement leading to the recovery of M.O.1. Accordingly, the accused had taken the Inspector to Barathi Anna Nagar and took out from the Orali gazem pit the axe and H.W.11 seized M.O.1 under an athatchi Ex.P-4 attested by P.W.5 and another witness. Then P.W.11 claims that he took the accused to the police station and sent him for judicial remand on 4. 1986. He also sent the material objects in this case to the court and gave requisition Ex.P-8 to send then for chemical analysis. 11. P.W.10 is the Junior Assistant attached to Judicial Second Class Magistrate Kodaikanal. He had stated that M.Os.l to 5 were received in Court on 4. 1986 and on 24. 1986 P.W.11 gave a requisition to send the material objects for chemical examination and that he sent them along with the covering letter of the learned Magistrate, copy of which has been marked as Ex.P-9. The Chemical Examiner’s report Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11 were received on 28. 1986 and 20.10.1986 and the serologist’s report Ex.P-12 was received on 11. 1986. P.W.11 the Inspector of Police, after completing all the formalities of Investigation, laid the final report against the accused on 17. 1986 under Sec.302, I.P.C. 12. When the appellant/accused was examined under Sec. 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials and circumstances available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied in toto his involvements in the crime. But however, he did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. As already stated, the learned trial Judge after considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and also the material objects, came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted the accused for the offence of murder and sentenced him as stated supra. 13. We have heard Mr.P. Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Government Advocate for the State Mr.Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel mainly contended the following points: P.W.1, the mother of the accused had turned hostile and therefore, there is no proof of she having given Ex.P-6, the first information report to the Police. We have heard Mr.P. Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Government Advocate for the State Mr.Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel mainly contended the following points: P.W.1, the mother of the accused had turned hostile and therefore, there is no proof of she having given Ex.P-6, the first information report to the Police. According to him, P.W.2 though has been examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence, could not have witnessed the occurrence and he could have been planted as a witness subsequent to the entire occurrence as though he also saw the occurrence. Per contra, learned Government Advocate would submit that the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence is probable and normal and that therefore, it is not possible to doubt that he could have witnessed the occurrence. 14. In this back-ground, we have carefully analysed the entire evidence on record. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to Ex.P-1 the observation mahazar prepared by P.W.11, the investigating Officers on 4. 1986. A reading of the observation mahazar makes it amply clear that the house of P.W.1 and the accused is situated in a hill area and to a distance of about one kilometre radius around the house, there are no other houses at all. It is also noticed that the house of the deceased is surrounded by herbs and shrubs and that the house of other persons are situated at a distance of nearby one kilometre from the house of the deceased and that there was no electric light either inside the house or outside the house. In this background, if P.W.2’s evidence is scanned, it is seen that there was no light facility at all in the vicinity of the house of the accused. He has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the house of the deceased did not have any electric light and the entire area was not having any electric connection. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at 10 p.m. in the night. Therefore, in view of the fact that there was no light facility at all at or about the vicinity of the scene of crime, we have to carefully analyse whether P.W.2 could have witnessed the occurrence, even assuming for a moment without admitting he was present at the time of occurrence. Therefore, in view of the fact that there was no light facility at all at or about the vicinity of the scene of crime, we have to carefully analyse whether P.W.2 could have witnessed the occurrence, even assuming for a moment without admitting he was present at the time of occurrence. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.2 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all. For that, he relies upon the fact that the name of P.W.2 is not mentioned in the first information report Ex.P-6 as a person who had seen the occurrence. According to P.W.2, he had been in the employment of the deceased and therefore, he was present in the house of the deceased when the occurrence is stated to have taken place. If really P.W.2 was present in the scene of occurrence, then P.W.1 would not have failed to mention his name in the earliest information laid by her before the Police. In this context, it is worth noticing the evidence of the investigating Officer P.W.11 in this case. He admits that in Ex.P-6 the information laid by P.W.1 and Ex.P-7 the express F.I.R. prepared, the name of P.W.2 has not been mentioned as a person who had seen the occurrence. He also admits that in the course of his investigation, it has come to light that P.W.1 is the only person who knows the entire occurrence. He would further admit that in the inquest report Ex.P-14, it is not mentioned that P.W.2 is a person who had seen the occurrence. In addition, he also candidly admits that in the inquest report it is stated that P.W.1 was the only person who had last seen the deceased alive. Therefore, the only person who can speak about the occurrence is P.W.1 and it stands established by the evidence of P.W.11. The failure to mention the name of P.W.2 in Ex.P-6 the first information report and Ex.P-14 the inquest report as the person who had witnessed the occurrence casts a serious doubt regarding his presence at the time of occurrence. Therefore, we are satisfied to hold that P.W.2 would not have been present in the scene of occurrence. 15. The conduct of P.W.2 also assumes importance in this case. Therefore, we are satisfied to hold that P.W.2 would not have been present in the scene of occurrence. 15. The conduct of P.W.2 also assumes importance in this case. If really he had witnessed the occurrence, it is understandable as to why he has not given any complaint to the police but on the other hand, he claims that he had gone to the house of P.W.3 on the next day morning at about 7 a.m. and informed P.W.3, as to what he saw on the earlier night in the house of the deceased. P.W.2 had not explained convincingly in what context he came to inform P.W.3 about the incident, who is a retired teacher and her husband is a retired Tahsildar. The evidence of P.W.3 is that she would be in Madurai for 15 days and for another 15 days, she would be at Kodaikanal. We have perused the evidence of P.W.3 more than once. Nowhere she says when actually P.W.2 met her. Though P.W.3 claims to have gone to the scene of occurrence and enquired P.W.1 about the incident, she has not chosen to give complaint immediately thereafter to the Police. As already stated, Ex.P-6 came to be recorded for the first time only at 6 P.M. on 4. 1986 almost after a delay of 20 hours from the time the occurrence is stated to have taken place. Even regarding arrest, there are serious infirmities. From the evidence of P.W.4 whose evidence has not been rejected by the Trial Court, it is clear that he P.W.1 and the accused went to the Police Station to give a complaint about the death of P.W.l’s husband. P.W.4 is very clear that on the next day morning, he enquired her and he suggested her to give a complaint to the Police and he also accompanied her. The sequence of events established in this case show that the suggestion of P.W.4 was accepted and thus Ex.P-6 came to be given on the evening of 4. 1986. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 showing that the accused was also present when the complaint was given appeal to us. Ex.P-1 the observation mahazar was prepared at 6 a.m. on 4. 1986. P.W.5 is the attesting witness to Ex.P-1. He categorically states in his cross-Examination that when he attested Ex.P-1, he saw the accused. 1986. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 showing that the accused was also present when the complaint was given appeal to us. Ex.P-1 the observation mahazar was prepared at 6 a.m. on 4. 1986. P.W.5 is the attesting witness to Ex.P-1. He categorically states in his cross-Examination that when he attested Ex.P-1, he saw the accused. Therefore, on a reading of the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 together, it stands probabilised that the accused was in the village itself even after the death of Mayandi Thevar. However, it is surprising, on the admitted position, as to how P.W.11 came to arrest the accused only on 4. 1986 at about 12 noon, when the accused was bodily and physically present according to P.W.4 at the police station itself on 4. 86 and according to P.W.5 at the scene of crime when observation mahazar was prepared on 86. It is understandable as to why P.W.11 failed to arrest the accused. The stand of the accused in the questioning under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assumes importance. The accused has categorically stated that he and his mother found his father lying dead and they went to the police station to give the complaint and at that time, the mother was sent out and he was retained in the police station. Therefore, the materials pointed out by use regarding the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence as well as in the police station coupled with his defence probabilises that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 16. P.W.1 had already turned hostile. Then the only other evidence that is available for the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.2. We have already held that P.W.2 could not have witnessed the occurrence in view of the several incriminatory materials against his evidence mentioned by us in the course of the judgment. To reiterate the same, it is clear that the name of P.W.2 is not mentioned as an eye-witness in Ex.P-6. We have already held that P.W.2 could not have witnessed the occurrence in view of the several incriminatory materials against his evidence mentioned by us in the course of the judgment. To reiterate the same, it is clear that the name of P.W.2 is not mentioned as an eye-witness in Ex.P-6. The investigating Officer in the course of his evidence has admitted that during his investigation it came to light that P.W.1 alone knows the entire occurrence; the name of P.W.2 is not mentioned in the inquest as a person who has witnessed the occurrence; in addition, his conduct of not informing the police immediately on the next day also raises serious suspicion as to whether he would have seen the occurrence. It is also not proved beyond reasonable doubts in view of the entire evidence available in this case, that P.W.2 would have been an eyewitness to the occurrence and therefore, it is clear that he is a person brought down by the police at a latter stage to speak about the occurrence as though he was present at the scene of crime. 17. Then remains the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence M.O.1 at the instance of the accused. Accused had disputed the recovery stated to have been made pursuant to his statement under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. As already stated, accused was present at the police station according to the evidence of P.W.4 on 4. 1986 when Ex.P-6 was lodged. The accused was also present on 4. 1986 at 6 a.m. when Ex.P-1 observation mahazar was prepared and attested by P.W.5. If really the accused had committed the crime and a complaint had come to be registered as claimed by the police on 4. 1986 at 6 p.m., nothing prevented the police either on 4. 1986 or 4. 1986 from arresting the accused. The conduct of the police in not arresting the accused on 4. 1986 and 4. 1986 and showing his arrest only on 4. 86 raises a serious doubt about the arrest itself. Therefore, the recovery, de hors the other facts of this case, by itself does not connect the accused with the crime stated to have been committed. 18. The medical evidence clinchingly establishes the fact that the deceased had died of homicidal violence. Yet, the question remains, who is responsible for the death of the deceased? Therefore, the recovery, de hors the other facts of this case, by itself does not connect the accused with the crime stated to have been committed. 18. The medical evidence clinchingly establishes the fact that the deceased had died of homicidal violence. Yet, the question remains, who is responsible for the death of the deceased? Though the prosecution points out the accused as the sole person responsible for the death of the deceased, in view of the several facts and circumstances, which we have noticed in this case and adverted to in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, we are unable to conclude that the accused is the person responsible for causing the death of the deceased. It may not be out of place to mention here that some abrasions were also found on the body of the deceased. This would mean, that there should been a quarrel between the deceased and the assailant and the deceased would have sustained those injuries in the quarrel. It is not the case of the prosecution, that the deceased and accused were involved in a fight and were rolling over the ground. Therefore, the presence of the abrasions also raises a serious doubt as to whether the deceased could have sustained the injuries in the manner spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. 19. Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent State would cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Pattu Lal v. State of Punjab, 1996 S.C.C. (Crl.) 657 to contend that though P.W.1 turned hostile, the investigating Officer’s evidence can be accepted regarding Ex.P-6 and on that basis conviction can follow. We are afraid we can no subscribe to this contention. In the above case cited by the learned Government. Advocate, it is found, that P. W. 1 who gave the complaint admitted that he gave the complaint. It was also found by the Court that nothing was suggested in the cross-examination of the Office who recorded the complaint that he had developed any animosity against the accused. In that background only, Supreme Court held that even though P.W.1 turned hostile, yet when he admits the giving of the complaint, the evidence of the Officer who recorded the complaint can be entertained and relied on to accept the complaint. But in this case, those facts are not available. In that background only, Supreme Court held that even though P.W.1 turned hostile, yet when he admits the giving of the complaint, the evidence of the Officer who recorded the complaint can be entertained and relied on to accept the complaint. But in this case, those facts are not available. P.W.1 admits that her thumb impressions were taken in blank papers. Besides, she turned hostile. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.1 had not admitted the giving of Ex.P-6 by her. Under these circumstances, the case law cited by the learned Government Advocate, may not be of any use to the facts of this case. In view of the several circumstances pointed out by us in this case, indicating that P.W.2 would not have seen the occurrence at all, we have to hold that there is no proof that the accused is the person responsible, for causing the death of the deceased in the manner stated by the prosecution. Therefore, we are left with no option except to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused though the crime is a dastardly one. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Anna District, Dindigul, in S.C.No.101 of 1986 dated 30.4.1987 are set aside. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.