Judgment :- M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C. No. 104 of 1987, on the file of Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, convicting the appellants 1 to 3 for the offences under Ss. 449 read with 34, I.P.C., and S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C., and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. There was no separate sentence imposed for the offence under S. 449 read with S. 34, I.P.C. 2. The crux of the indictment is that on 11-5-1986, the appellants 1 to 3 trespassed into the house of the deceased Elangovan, and attacked him with Urrutukattai (M.O. 5), pen knife (M.O. 1) and broken bottle (M.O. 2 series), as a result of which the deceased Elangovan died on 12-5-1986 at about 6.30 a.m., at the Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu 3. The facts leading to the conviction need narration :- (a) The scene village 'Kottivakkam Kolathur Colony' is situate within the jurisdiction of Chithamoor Police Station. The deceased Elangovan is the younger brother of P.W. 1 Seetharaman, P.W. 2 Lakshmi is the mother of P.W. 1 and the deceased. They were living in joint family in the said Kottivakkam Kolathur Colony. The appellants also hail from the same village. Appellants 1 and 2 are brothers and the 3rd appellant is the father of appellants 1 and 2. The house of the appellants situate very near to the house of the deceased, at a distance of about 500 years. Originally the appellants were moving friendly with the family of P.W. 1 (b) Two years prior to the occurrence, P.W. 1 Seetharaman gave a hand loan of Rs. 40/- to the 3rd appellant Serrian. In spite of repeated demands the 3rd appellant did not make repayment. Therefore, P.W. 1 Seetharaman, went to Panchayatars and complained about the same. The Panchayatars after discussion advised P.W. 1, to take away the pig kept in the house of the 3rd appellant and keep it till the amount is paid by him. They also instructed him to take the pig as his own, if the amount is not repaid within a reasonable time. Accordingly, P.W. 1 went to the house of 3rd appellant and forcibly took away a pig belonging to the 3rd appellant and waited for three months. They also instructed him to take the pig as his own, if the amount is not repaid within a reasonable time. Accordingly, P.W. 1 went to the house of 3rd appellant and forcibly took away a pig belonging to the 3rd appellant and waited for three months. Since repayment was not made even after the expiry of three months' period, the family of P.W. 1 had the pig as their food. Then onwards enmity developed between the family of P.W. 1 and the 3rd appellant(c) Some time prior to the occurrence, Panchayat election was held in the said village. The family of the appellants supported one Munusamy, while P.W. 1's family supported one Subramaniam. Finally, Subramaniam won the election and the said Munusamy got defeated. This also resulted in hostility in between the families of the appellants and P.W. 1 (d) The fateful day fell on 11-5-1986, a Sunday. P.W. 1 Seetharaman, asked his brother, the deceased Elangovan to go and get change for a hundred rupee note. The deceased Elangovan went to Chithamoor, tendered a hundred rupee note, purchased a litre of toddy, and got back the balance of Rs. 97.50, and consumed the same in toddy shop of P.W. 4 Seitu, where the appellants 1 and 3 also consumed toddy about an hour and half before the deceased visited the shop (e) At about 6.00 p.m., when the deceased Elangovan was on his way back home, he saw an incident of quarrel between A-1 and A-3 on one side and P.W. 5 and others on other side. P.W. 5 Ganesan with a rope beat the 3rd appellant. On seeing this, the deceased Elangovan intervened and asked P.W. 5 as to why he beat him. P.W. 5 told him that appellants 1 and 3 in a drunken mood blocked his way to village, and so he beat them. Thereafter, the deceased Elangovan came to his house and informed the same to P.W. 1 (f) At about 7.00 p.m., P.W. 1 Seetharaman, the deceased Elangovan and their father, requested P.W. 2 and the wife of P.W. 1, to serve food. When they were sitting in front yard of the house and while P.W. 2 Lakshmi and her daughter-in-law Kuruvammal were serving food, at about 7.30 p.m., appellants 1 to 3 entered into the house and stood near the deceased. The deceased questioned them as to why they came there. When they were sitting in front yard of the house and while P.W. 2 Lakshmi and her daughter-in-law Kuruvammal were serving food, at about 7.30 p.m., appellants 1 to 3 entered into the house and stood near the deceased. The deceased questioned them as to why they came there. The 1st appellant exclaimed that he was beaten at the road side by some persons only at the instance of the deceased, and so they came for the purpose of attacking the deceased. So saying, the 1st appellant with M.O. 5 Thadi assaulted on the back of the head of the deceased, the 2nd appellant Kumar with M.O. 1 pen knife stabbed the deceased, but the deceased warded off that attack, and so, the deceased sustained injury on his left hand, the 3rd appellant with arrack bottle beat on the forehead of the deceased, as a result of which blood came out from his forehead. Immediately, thereafter the deceased fell down on the floor unconscious. The witnesses cried aloud. On bearing the noise P.W. 3 Ranganathan and one Subbarayan, the neighbours came to the scene, and on seeing the accused/appellants armed with weapons, they tried to apprehend them. Since the appellants threatened that they would attack them also, they stood keeping quiet. All the appellants ran away from the place, along with the weapons(g) P.W. 1 Seetharaman and P.W. 3 Ranganathan took the victim Elangovan, who was in an unconscious state, to the Chithamoor Police Station. P.W. 11 Jayaraman, Sub-Inspector of Police, at about 8.30 p.m., recorded the statement of P.W. 1 and obtained his signature thereon. Ex. P1 is the said complaint, on the basis of which, the case was registered in Cr. No. 95 of 1986, under Ss. 323, 324 and 307, I.P.C. Ex. P7 is the printed F.I.R. P.W. 11 sent the victim along with Police Memo to the Government Hospital, Maduranthagam. Thereafter, he despatched the complaint and F.I.R., to the Court, as well as to the senior police officials (h) At about 9.00 p.m., P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police went to scene of occurrence, and prepared Ex. P9 observation mahazar and Ex. P10 rough sketch. He recovered M.O. 2 series broken bottle and M.O. 6 series glass pieces under Ex. P8 mahazar. P9 observation mahazar and Ex. P10 rough sketch. He recovered M.O. 2 series broken bottle and M.O. 6 series glass pieces under Ex. P8 mahazar. He examined P.W. 1 Seetharaman, P.W. 2 Lakshmi, P.W. 3 Ranganathan and others at the spot (i) P.W. 9 Doctor Puhazendhi, attached to the Government Hospital, Maduranthagam, examined the victim Elangovan at about 11.55 p.m., on 11-5-1986, accompanied by P.W. 3 Ranganathan, along with Police Memo No. 27/HOS/86, sent by P.W. 11, Sub-Inspector of Police. On examination, he found the following injuries :- "1. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on the forehead 2. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the right frontal occipital region 3. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on left deltoid region (shoulder) 4. Incised wound 4 cm. x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm. over the left ring finger on the lateral aspect." * Since the patient was in coma and not responding to painful stimuli, after suturing the wounds and giving first aid, the victim was referred to Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital, for further treatment. P.W. 9 issued Ex. P6 wound certificate(j) P.W. 6 Doctor Ravi, attached to Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu, examined the victim at about 1.15 a.m., on 12-5-1986, and found a sutured wound in left side of forehead 5 cm. in length and bleeding from nostril. P.W. 6 Doctor issued Ex. P2 Accident Register extract (k) P.W. 7 Doctor Anbazahan, attached to Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu gave further treatment to the victim. Despite his treatment, the victim Elangovan died at 6.30 a.m., on 12-5-1986. Ex. P3 is the case sheet for the deceased Elangovan. P.W. 7 Doctor immediately thereafter sent death intimation Ex. P11 to the police. P.W. 11, on receipt of death intimation altered the F.I.R., into S. 302, I.P.C. Ex. P12 is the express F.I.R. Then he forwarded the same to the Court, as well as to the senior police officials (l) P.W. 13 Manickam, the Inspector of Police on receipt of message at about 11.00 a.m., on 12-5-1986, look up further investigation. He straight-way went to the Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu. Between 12.00 Noon and 3.00 p.m., on 12-5-1986, P.W. 13 conducted inquest and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others. Ex. P18 is the inquest report. Thereafter he sent the dead body through P.W. 10 Sigamani Police Constable for post-mortem along with Ex. He straight-way went to the Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu. Between 12.00 Noon and 3.00 p.m., on 12-5-1986, P.W. 13 conducted inquest and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others. Ex. P18 is the inquest report. Thereafter he sent the dead body through P.W. 10 Sigamani Police Constable for post-mortem along with Ex. P4 requisition (m) P.W. 10 Police Constable handed over the dead body of the deceased to P.W. 8 Doctor Asokan for post mortem. On 13-5-1986, at about 11.25 a.m., P.W. 8 commenced the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found the following :- "1. Sutured wound on the left side of the forehead present vertically 3 cm in length with two sutures intact 2. Contusion on the left side of the occipit 3 cm. from the midline 3. Incised like wound on the lateral side of the left ring finger measuring 6 cm. in length 4. Swelling over the right parietal region 5. Contusion over the right leb 4 cm. below right knee joint 6. Subscapular haematoma present on the right temporal and parietal region and over the occipital region 7. Communitted fracture of the right parietal and temporal bones of the skull 8. Extradural haematoma 150 gms. in weight over the right hemisphere of the brain 9. Subdural haematoma over the right hemisphere and occipital lobe of the brain 10. Fracture of the base of the skull in the middle cranial fossa running horizontally 8 cm. in length Heart, stomach and bladder were found empty." * Ex. P5 is the post-mortem certificate. P.W. 8 Doctor, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to fractures of the skull as a result of the head injury (n) After post-mortem, P.W. 10 Police Constable, recovered M.O. 3 blood-stained lungi and M.O. 4 blood-stained towel from the body of the deceased, and handed over the M.Os., to the Inspector of Police P.W. 13 and the dead body to the relatives of the deceased (o) On 15-5-1986, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W. 13 arrested the 1st appellant Srinivasan at Jamin Endathur. The 1st appellant gave a voluntary confession, the admissible portions of which are Exs. P19 and P20. In pursuance of the said confessions, the 1st appellant escorted P.W. 13 and others to his house and from there M.O. 5 thadi' was recovered under Ex. The 1st appellant gave a voluntary confession, the admissible portions of which are Exs. P19 and P20. In pursuance of the said confessions, the 1st appellant escorted P.W. 13 and others to his house and from there M.O. 5 thadi' was recovered under Ex. P21 mahazar (p) On 16-5-1986, P.W. 13 sent Ex. P13 requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, to arrange for recording the confession of the 1st appellant under S. 164, Cr.P.C. as the 1st appellant expressed his willingness for the same. On receipt of Ex. P13, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, directed P.W. 12, Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thirukazukundram, to record the confession statement of the 1st appellant. On direction of P.W. 12, the 1st appellant was produced before him on 19-5-1986 at about 3.00 p.m. The Magistrate put necessary questions as contemplated in the Code for recording the statement of the 1st appellant, and further directed to produce him on 20-5-1986. Accordingly on 20-5-1986, the 1st appellant was produced before P.W. 12, at about 4.00 p.m. Again, after putting necessary questions and satisfying that the 1st appellant would give voluntary confession, P.W. 12, recorded his confession Ex. P16. Thereafter he appended his certificate Ex. P17. Exs. P14 and P15 are the proceedings of the recording of the confession of 1st appellant, dated 19-5-1986 and 20-5-1986 respectively(q) In the meantime, on 19-5-1986, at about 1.00 p.m., P.W. 13 arrested appellants 2 and 3. The 2nd appellant gave a voluntary confession, the admissible portions of which are Exs. P22 and P23. In pursuance of the said confession, M.O. 1 pen knife was recovered near the pumpset, under Ex. P24 (r) After finishing investigation, P.W. 13 Inspector of Police, filed the charge-sheet on 10-6-1986, against the appellants 1 to 3 for the offences under Ss. 448, 302 read with Ss. 34 and 506(ii), I.P.C., before the Committal Court 4. On committal, the Sessions Court framed the charges against the appellants for the offences under S. 449 read with S. 34 and S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C., and questioned them. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried 5. To substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, filed Exs. P1 to P24 and marked M.Os. 1 to 6 6. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried 5. To substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, filed Exs. P1 to P24 and marked M.Os. 1 to 6 6. After the evidence was over, the appellants were questioned under S. 313, Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances found available in evidence brought on record. The appellants denied their complicity in the crime, and uniformly said that they were innocent and a false case had been foisted against them. The 1st appellant specifically stated that he gave the statement before the judicial Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C., only under compulsion and threat of the police 7. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence oral and documentary, adduced by prosecution, gave a finding that the prosecution has established its case beyond doubt, and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellants, as referred to above. Being aggrieved over this verdict of the Sessions Court, the present action has been resorted to by the applellants 8. Mr. Seetharaman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and strenuously contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, because there are number of infirmities and pitfalls, which would make the prosecution case doubtful, and as such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted 9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Anbazagan, countered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, stating that the reasonings given by the trial Court, for convicting the appellants are correct and unassailable 10. We have carefully considered the divergent contentions urged by the counsel on either side. There are three eye witnesses in this case. To corroborate the ocular testimony, the prosecution produced the medical evidence through P.Ws. 6 to 9. Besides this, M.O. 1 pen knife and M.O. 5 thadi, were recovered at the instance of appellants 2 and 1 respectively, as referred to in the evidence of P.W. 13 Inspector of Police 11. At the outset, let us consider the liability of the evidence adduced by P.W. 3, one of the eye-witnesses. P.W. 3 Ranganathan is the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 1. According to P.W. 3, oh hearing the noise he rushed to the scene and saw the appellants 1 to 3 beating the deceased. At the outset, let us consider the liability of the evidence adduced by P.W. 3, one of the eye-witnesses. P.W. 3 Ranganathan is the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 1. According to P.W. 3, oh hearing the noise he rushed to the scene and saw the appellants 1 to 3 beating the deceased. Pertinent it is to point out at this stage, that a close reading of Ex. P1, which was given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 11 at about 8.15 p.m., on the same day, would go to show that P.W. 3 would not have been present at the place of occurrence, when the attack was made on the deceased by the appellants 12. In Ex. P1, P.W. 1 specifically stated that appellants 1 to 3 came there and attacked the deceased, due to which the deceased became unconscious and fell down on the floor, and only when they raised hue and cry, P.W. 3 Ranganathan and one Subbarayan, came to the spot. The relevant portion of Ex. P1 is as follows :-It is clear from the above recitals, that P.W. 3 came to the spot only after the deceased fell down on the floor, on receipt of injuries, and would make it clear, that P.W. 3 Ranganathan would not have seen the occurrence 13. Moreover, even in the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 and 2, there is no reference about P.W. 3 as having witnessed the occurrence, when the deceased was assaulted by the appellants. Therefore, a reading of the depositions of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the F.I.R., would reveal that P.W. 3 Ranganathan was not the witness to the alleged attack made by the appellants on the deceased. Furthermore, the house of P.W. 3 was situate at a distance of one furlong away from the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 Lakshmi, the mother of P.W. 1 would admit in her evidence that (Vernacular matter is omitted). P.W. 11 Sub-inspector of Police also would admit that the house of P.W. 3 was situated in an adjacent street, and that was why his house was not shown in the rough sketch Ex. P10. Therefore, it is quite clear that P.W. 3 would not have rushed to the scene of occurrence, from a distance of one furlong, and seen the incident which took place in the front yard of the house of P.W. 1 14. P10. Therefore, it is quite clear that P.W. 3 would not have rushed to the scene of occurrence, from a distance of one furlong, and seen the incident which took place in the front yard of the house of P.W. 1 14. Another circumstance, which has necessarily to be taken note of is that P.W. 9, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital. Maduranthagam, mentioned in the wound certificate Ex. P6, that the deceased was brought by P.W. 3 Ranganathan. Admittedly, when P.W. 9 treated the victim Elangovan, he was unconscious and was not able to talk. P.W. 3 has told the Doctor, as mentioned in Ex. P6 wound certificate, that the injuries were caused on the deceased due to the attack with knife, thadi, at the house of the patient. If P.W. 3 was really an eye-witness to the occurrence, he would have mentioned to the Doctor P.W. 9, that broken bottle was also used for causing the injuries. When all these particulars with reference to the time of occurrence, place of occurrence and the weapons used are given by P.W. 3 to P.W. 9, the omission to mention the weapon broken bottle in Ex. P6 wound certificate would clearly show that P.W. 3 would not have seen the occurrence, and we find some force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, that P.W. 3 was a witness set up by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of other ocular witnesses 15. P.W. 3 would say that the 3rd appellant hit the bottle first on the floor and then with the broken bottle stabbed on the forehead of the deceased. This evidence is contradicted by P.Ws. 1 and 2, who would say that the 3rd appellant beat the deceased on his forehead and during that process the bottle got broken. So, in these circumstances, we are of the view, that P.W. 3 would not have been present in the scene of occurrence, and as such, his presence is highly doubtful. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the evidence of P.W. 3 16. (a) Coming to the evidence of P.W. 1, particularly with reference to the motive aspect, P.W. 1 would specifically depose that he gave a hand loan of Rs. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the evidence of P.W. 3 16. (a) Coming to the evidence of P.W. 1, particularly with reference to the motive aspect, P.W. 1 would specifically depose that he gave a hand loan of Rs. 40/- to the 3rd appellant and because of the non-payment of the said sum by the 3rd appellant, as per the advice of the panchayatdars, P.W. 1 took away the pig belonging to him, which the family of P.W. 1 had as their food, at a later point of time, in a marriage function. This evidence is corroborated by P.W. 2, the mother of P.W. 1 (b) But a reading of F.I.R., would clearly show that P.W. 1 has given a different version, with reference to this aspect. According to Ex. P1, P.W. 1 demanded for repayment, which the 3rd appellant refused, and immediately thereafter, P.W. 1 forcibly took away the pig to his house, and that thereafter, P.W. 3 went to the Village President Munusamy, and requested for holding a Panchayt, but the said Munusamy did not convene any Panchayat. So, there is a clear contradiction with reference to the motive aspect. Of course, in murder cases, the motive aspect does not assume great importance, when there are ocular testimony corroborated by other evidence like medical evidence etc. But, in this case, we rather feel that the evidence of P.W. 1, who gave Ex. P1, would not only be inconsistent with reference to the motive aspect, but also in other aspects which we shall deal with later 17. To speak about the occurrence, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined. They would say that the appellants 1 to 3 came into the house of P.W. 1, that the 1st appellant beat the deceased with thadi on the back of his head. Their specific evidence is that the 1st appellant gave a single hit on the head of the deceased. But the medical evidence is projected by P.W. 8 would show that there were several injuries. Furthermore, there was no injury on the backside of the head, whereas the injuries were on the left side occipital region, right parietal region and right temporal region. According to P.W. 8 Doctor, these injuries could have been caused by hitting with M.O. 5 thadi 18. Furthermore, there was no injury on the backside of the head, whereas the injuries were on the left side occipital region, right parietal region and right temporal region. According to P.W. 8 Doctor, these injuries could have been caused by hitting with M.O. 5 thadi 18. According to P.W. 9, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Madurantakam, who examined the victim at an earlier point of time, found a contusion on the left deltoid region (shoulder). This would make it clear that thadi must have been used for causing these four or five injuries by beating repeatedly. The testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not corroborated by medical evidence adduced by P.W. 9, Doctor who gave first aid to the victim and P.W. 8, who conducted post-mortem. This also would make us feel, that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have not presented the true version relating to the occurrence 19. Furthermore, P.W. 6 Doctor attached to Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu, mentioned in Ex. P2 that the victim was accompanied by P.W. 1 Seetharaman, and he was alleged to have been assaulted by three known persons at about 7.00 p.m., with knife, thadi. Here also, the broken bottle was not mentioned. So, if P.W. 1 had actually seen the occurrence, he would have given the details to P.W. 6 Doctor about the nature of the weapons used, by the appellants. Since the important weapon that is alleged to have been used by the 3rd appellant was not mentioned in Ex. P2, we could infer that even at 1.15 a.m., at which point of time P.W. 1 was at Chengalpattu Hospital, he did not give correct and true details to the doctor 20. Yet another contradiction, which we could find from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that they would depose that after attacking the deceased, all the appellants took away the weapons and took to their heels, whereas P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police, who came to the spot recovered M.O. 2 series and M.O. 6 series, broken bottle and glass pieces under Ex. P8 mahazar, at about 9.30 p.m., on the same day. Admittedly, no weapon was recovered from the 3rd appellant, when he was arrested by the police. Even in Ex. P8 mahazar, at about 9.30 p.m., on the same day. Admittedly, no weapon was recovered from the 3rd appellant, when he was arrested by the police. Even in Ex. P9 recovery mahazar, prepared at the house of deceased it is mentioned as follows :- This would show that the 3rd appellant did not run away from the place of occurrence with the broken bottle alleged to have been used for causing injury on the forehead of the deceased 21. In Ex. P1 complaint, it is mentioned that the 1st appellant used 'urruttu kattai' and beat the deceased on his head. P.W. 1 would also state in his cross-examination that he knows the difference between the urruttu kattai and thadi. When he was specifically confronted with the nature of the weapon, he stated that (vernacular matter is omitted) Furthermore, though M.O. 5 thadi was said to have been recovered from the 1st appellant, this was not shown to P.W. 1, while he was in the witness box. As such, M.O. 5 thadi was not identified by P.W. 1 22. Another contradiction we could seen in between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, is that P.W. 1 in his examination as well as in Ex. P1 would state that the entire village people were against them, whereas P.W. 2 would say that village people did not have any hostile attitude towards them 23. P.W. 2 in his chief examination would state that after the occurrence, she also went along with P.W. 1 to the Police Station, and she was present while the complaint Ex. P1 was given by P.W. 1, to P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police. But in the cross-examination, P.W. 2 would admit that she went along with others to the police station, only after the death of the deceased24. P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police would say, that after recording the statement of P.W. 1 Ex. P1, he sent P.Ws. 1 and 3 along with the victim to the Government Hospital, Madurantakam, with police memo No. 27/HOS/86, dated 11-5-1986. Curiously, in the cross-examination, when P.W. 11 was confronted with the said memo, he said that the same was not available with him, and so he was not able to produce the same in Court. P1, he sent P.Ws. 1 and 3 along with the victim to the Government Hospital, Madurantakam, with police memo No. 27/HOS/86, dated 11-5-1986. Curiously, in the cross-examination, when P.W. 11 was confronted with the said memo, he said that the same was not available with him, and so he was not able to produce the same in Court. If the memo was produced, it would enable the Court to verify the contents of the complaint, which has been given by P.W. 1 at about 8.15 p.m 25. In this context, it is relevant to note that Exs. P2 and P6, the Accident Registers would show that the deceased was beaten only by thadi and knife, and no reference about bottle. But in the complaint Ex. P1, registered at 8.15 p.m., it is stated that broken bottle was used for causing injuries on the deceased. If police memo sent to the hospital was produced, it would have helped the Court to know whether the said weapon broken bottle was used 26. The most dismal feature that we could see in this case is that though the F.I.R., was registered at about 8.15 p.m., on 11-5-1986, for the offences under Ss. 323, 324 and 307, I.P.C., the same has reached the Court only at 2.00 p.m., on 12-5-1986. This long delay has not been explained by the prosecution. To make the matter worse, though the death intimation Ex. P11 has been received by P.W. 11 in the early morning of 12-5-1986, immediately after the death of the deceased at about 6.30 a.m., the express report Ex. P12, altering the F.I.R. into S. 302, I.P.C. has been received by the Magistrate only at 2.00 p.m., on 12-5-1986, which shows that Ex. P7 printed F.I.R., and Ex. P12 express report have reached the Magistrate in one and the same time. It would raise a doubt that EX. P1 F.I.R., would not have been prepared at the time alleged by the prosecution and the complaint would not have been received from P.W. 1, at about 8.15 p.m., by P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police27. It must be visualised that according to prosecution, the complaint Ex. P1 was given by P.W. 1 at about 8.15 p.m., on 11-5-1986, to P.W. 11, while the victim was gasping for life. The original complaint Ex. P1 runs about three pages. It must be visualised that according to prosecution, the complaint Ex. P1 was given by P.W. 1 at about 8.15 p.m., on 11-5-1986, to P.W. 11, while the victim was gasping for life. The original complaint Ex. P1 runs about three pages. So, it is highly doubtful, whether P.W. 11 would have spent time to write Ex. P1, running about three pages, keeping the victim at the police station itself, without making immediate arrangement for sending him to hospital. In such circumstances, we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that Ex. P1 complaint was recorded at 8.15 p.m., on 11-5-1986 28. Ex. P3 is the case sheet for the deceased taking treatment at Chengalpattu Medical Collage Hospital. Even in Ex. P3, there was no reference about the broken bottle. The fact that F.I.R., was received by the Court only at 2.00 p.m., on the next day, i.e., 12-5-1986, would create a doubt over the case of the prosecution, that Ex. P1 is a product of fabrication, after consultation and discussion. So we are not able to give any weight to Ex. P1 complaint, since we feel, that it is a document of doubtful nature 29. Another agonizing factor is that though blood-stained clothes M.Os. 3 and 4 were recovered from the body of the deceased, P.W. 13, the inspector of Police did not care to send them for chemical analysis through Court, to substantiate the case of prosecution that the deceased was attacked by the appellants in the place, time and the manner alleged by the prosecution 30. Besides this, Ex. P16 the statement of 1st appellant under S. 164, Cr.P.C., given before the Judicial Magistrate P.W. 12, does not support the case of the prosecution, whereas it completely contradicts the case of the prosecution. In Ex. P16, the 1st appellant stated before P.W. 12 Judicial Magistrate, that since he was beaten by some persons set up by deceased, he alone went to the house of the deceased and beat on the head of the deceased with thadi. It is also stated therein, that he was beaten by P.W. 1. These things would show, that the prosecution has not presented the true version through the ocular testimony. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, three persons attacked the deceased. But according to Ex. It is also stated therein, that he was beaten by P.W. 1. These things would show, that the prosecution has not presented the true version through the ocular testimony. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, three persons attacked the deceased. But according to Ex. P16, the statement of 1st appellant before P.W. 12 Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C., he alone attacked with thadi by giving a single blow, which again contradicts the medical evidence. In view of the above contradictions and infirmities, we are of the view that the prosecution has not presented true version before the Court31. The following decisions would be relevant in the context of what we have stated above (a) In Nohny v. State, 1990 Mad LW (Crl) 175, Arunachalam, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench would observe as follows :- "If the Court is satisfied that the first information report was not a true document containing what had actually happened on the date of the occurrence, and there was a doubt about the first information report being fabricated or brought into existence to implicate as entire fabric of the prosecution case collapsed. In that context, the eye-witnesses, though injured, cannot be relied on, due to enmity ......" * It is further observed in the said decision, while referring to the duty of the investigating agency, as follows :- "The investigating agency owes a duty not only to the Court to place the true facts, but also the society at large to bring to book the real perpetrators of the crime. Courts have to see that no real culprit goes away beyond its reach and escapes punishment. Nevertheless, the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt by letting in acceptable, convincing and implicitly reliable evidence, for otherwise grave injustice would be the result, if the court, chooses to punish a person only on moral satisfaction It may or may not be that the accused are the authors of this crime. But, the Court cannot close its eye ignoring all infirmities and flaws in the investigation, which cut at the root of the case bringing the whole edifice of the prosecution into debris. But, the Court cannot close its eye ignoring all infirmities and flaws in the investigation, which cut at the root of the case bringing the whole edifice of the prosecution into debris. The public expectation of efficient, fair and speedy justice cannot be fulfilled by the court only, whose duly is to administer justice according to law on the evidence available on record. Courts cannot be carried away or influenced by any sentimental feelings but have to assess the evidence in the proper perspective and arrive at certain conclusion, that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt." (b) In Awadesh v. State of M.P. the Apex Court while dealing with the delay in F.I.R., would observe as follows at page 1158 of Cri LJ :- "Since the Sub-Inspector, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police had reached the place of occurrence within few minutes of the incident, the delay in lodging the first information report is highly suspicious. Why this delay when all officers were present, and eye-witnesses were present at the spot and the police station was at distance of two furlongs ? The obvious reason appears to be that their names of the assailants were not known as most likely the alleged two eye-witnesses had not seen the assailant and they were not present at the scene of occurrence, at the time the shooting took place, in all likelihood, they like others arrived at the scene after the incident. Since names of the assailants were not known the F.I.R. was lodged with delay after deliberation." * (c) The Supreme Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala held as follows :- "The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the F.I.R. is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence." * (d) In State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu while suspecting the bona fides of the investigation and dealing with the delay in F.I.R. would observe as follows :- "As a matter of fact, the High Court recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Ex. P1 had not been prepared at Narasaraopet and that it had "been brought into existence at Pamaidipadu itself, after due deliberation". P1 had not been prepared at Narasaraopet and that it had "been brought into existence at Pamaidipadu itself, after due deliberation". Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inespcapable that the investigation, is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stopped to fabricate evidence and create false clues." * (e) As we have referred to earlier, if there is any inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, it would not be safe to rely on the coular testimony. Pointing out the said principle, the Apex Court in Mohar Singh v. State of Punjab has observed as hereunder :- "In view of this glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, it will be extremely unsafe and hazardous to maintain the conviction of the appellants on such evidence. For the reasons, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt." * (f) In the instant case, even according to Ex. P16, the appellant 2 and 3 have not participated and the contradiction with reference to the usage of the weapon by the 3rd appellant and the non-mentioning of the bottle in Exs. P2, 3, and 6 would also go to show that the 3rd appellant could not have been present at the time of occurrence. This would show, that the 3rd appellant has been falsely imlicated in this case. The Apex Court has held, when there is a false implication of some persons, that would give an impact, on the entire case of the prosecution, and so the entire fabric of the prosecution case gets collapsed (g) In B. N. Singh v. State of Gujarat 1990 SCC(Crl) 283 : 1990 CrLJ 1601 ), the observation of the Apex Court reads thus at page 1604; of Cri LJ :- "But in the instant case, the circumstance viz. that accused 3 was falsely implicated is glaring and renders the evidence of these interested witnesses highly suspicious .............. that accused 3 was falsely implicated is glaring and renders the evidence of these interested witnesses highly suspicious .............. In view of this glaring infirmity in their evidence we are of the view that their evidence is not trustworthy against any of the accused and any reliance placed on such evidence is likely to result in miscarriage of justice." * (h) In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court while referring about the doubtful nature on the genesis and the origin of the occurrence, and failure on the part of the police officer to send the bloodstained articles and earth recovered from the place of occurrence for chemical analysis, held as follows :- "That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version To add to this another important circumstance is the omission on the part of the prosecution to send the bloodstained earth found at the place of occurrence for chemical examination which could have fixed the situs of the assault. In almost all criminal cases, the bloodstained earth found from the place of occurrence is invariably sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report along with the earth is produced in the Court, and yet this is one exceptional case where this procedure was departed from for reasons best known to the prosecution. This also, therefore, shows that the defence version may be true Similarly so far as deased Brahmedeo is concerned, the evidence of the witnesses shows that he had received 4 to 5 lathi blows at the hands of his assailants, but the medical evidence of Dr. Jaiswal shows that he had one lacerated wound on the scalp, a swelling and three scratches. In view of the ocular evidence we should have expected many more lathi injuries on the person of the deceased Brahmdeo rather than just one swelling and a few scratches, apart from the lacerated wound. Thus this is also a very important suspicious circumstance which negatives the truth of the prosecution case." * 32. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, and the evidence of P.W. 3 is more suspicious, and the medical evidence adduced by PW. 8 is quite contradictory to the ocular testimony. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, and the evidence of P.W. 3 is more suspicious, and the medical evidence adduced by PW. 8 is quite contradictory to the ocular testimony. Therefore, we are not able to agree with the findings and reasonings given by the trial Court, to come to the conclusion that the appellants 1 to 3 have participated in the crime and attacked the deceased. In that view of the matter, we feel, that the convictions and sentences imposed upon the appellants 1 to 3 are not valid in law and the same are liable to be set aside33. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants 1 to 3 by the trial court are set aside. The appellants 1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges framed against them and they are set at liberty forthwith.