ORDER The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 and the respondent is the complainant before the lower court. This appeal is preferred by the appellants as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Sessions Case No.205 of 1987, dated 14.10.1988. 2. The prosecution case as briefly stated is as follows: P.W. 1 Ravi, P.W.2 Elumalai, and P.W.3 Kannan belong to Erupakkam colony within the limits of Madurantakam police station. The deceased Raji is the son of P.W.3 Kannan. P.W.3 Kannan is the maternal uncle of P.W. 1 Ravi and P.W.2 Elumalai, who are brothers. The accused 1 to 4, who are the appellants herein, belong to the same colony and they are brothers. P.W.1 Ravi, P.W.2 Elumalai, P.W.3 Kannan and P. W.4 Mariammal are eye witnesses to the occurrence. The occurrence took place on 10.5.1987 at about 8.30 p.m. at Erupakkam Colony. Prior to the occurrence on 9.5.1987 P.W.1 Ravi, the deceased Raji the 2nd accused Rajagopal and the 2nd accused's brother's wife Thulukannam were attending to agricultural operation in the lands of one Lakshmipathi at Puthur village. After thrashing of paddy crops, P.W.1 Ravi was attending to the shaking of stump stocks of paddy so that the paddy can be collected and stored in a place. At that time, Thulukkanam, the brother's wife of the 2nd accused Rajagopal, mocked at P.W. 1 and stated that P.W. 1 Ravi is an impotent fellow by using the Word and P.W.1 Ravi is womanish P.W. 1 Ravi retorted by saying that such people are in the house of Thulukkanam. Thereupon the 1st accused Elumalai caught hold of the neck of P.W. 1 Ravi and beat him with hands on his neck. Then the deceased Raji and some others in the agricultural field separated them. On the night of 9.5.1987 itself there was a panchayat about this incident and P.W.6 Munuswamy held panchayat and pacified both sides and asked them to resume their normal work. On the next day i.e., on 10.5.1987 at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.1 Ravi was proceeding in a cycle to the nearby village called Kinar village for shopping. The 1st accused Elumalai came in the opposite direction in another cycle and dashed against the cycle of P.W. 1 Ravi and as a result P.W.1 Ravi fell down. On the next day i.e., on 10.5.1987 at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.1 Ravi was proceeding in a cycle to the nearby village called Kinar village for shopping. The 1st accused Elumalai came in the opposite direction in another cycle and dashed against the cycle of P.W. 1 Ravi and as a result P.W.1 Ravi fell down. The 1st accused Elumalai caught hold to the tuft of P.W.1 Ravi and beat him with hands. Thereupon P.W.1 Ravi shouted and the other accused A-2 to A-4 came there and beat P.W.1 Ravi with hands indiscriminately. On hearing the shouting of P.W. 1 Ravi, P.W.2 Elumalai, P.W.3 Kannan, the father-in-law of P.W.1 Ravi, mother-in-law of Ravi came there and later P.W.4 Mariammal came to the scene of occurrence. During the course of the occurrence, the accused No.2 Rajagopal beat P.W.2 Elumalai on the back of his left hand with an iron pipe marked as M.O.2. Then the 4th accused Govindan snatched the iron pipe M.O.2 from the 2nd accused and with that iron pipe, the 4th accused beat P.W.3 Kannan on his left hand. At that time the son of P.W.3 Kannan, viz., the deceased Raji came to the scene of occurrence and questioned the accused about their unlawful action. Thereupon, the accused 1, 3 and 4 beat and fisted the deceased indiscriminately and caught hold of him and then the 2nd accused Rajagopal took the iron rod marked as M.O.1 and assaulted the deceased with the iron rod on his head saying The deceased Raji was taken to Kinar Village where a taxi was brought on the telephonic message given by P.W.5 Murthy. Then the deceased and the other two injured persons were taken in the taxi to Madurantakam General Hospital. 3. The Doctor in the General Hospital at Madurantakam sworn as P.W.9 Arthanari examined the injured P.W.2 Elumalai, P.W.3 Kannan and the deceased Raji and advised them to take the deceased and the injured to the General Hospitaly at Chengalpattu. The Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari examined the deceased Raji at 11.00 p.m. and he issued the accident register copy marked as Ex.P-10 for the injuries found on the deceased Raji. He examined P.W.3 Kannan at 11.20 p.m. and he issued the accident register copy under Ex.P-11 for the injuries found on P.W.3 Kannan. The Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari examined the deceased Raji at 11.00 p.m. and he issued the accident register copy marked as Ex.P-10 for the injuries found on the deceased Raji. He examined P.W.3 Kannan at 11.20 p.m. and he issued the accident register copy under Ex.P-11 for the injuries found on P.W.3 Kannan. Then the Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari sent the intimation to the police on the same night at about 1.00 a.m. and the intimation sent by him is marked as Ex.P-12. The Doctor at the Chengalpattu General Hospital examined as P.W.7 Sekar examined P.W.3 Kannan at O.20 hours on 11.5.1997 Sekar referred from Madurantakam General Hospital and P.W.7 Dr. Sekar issued the accident register extract marked as Ex.P-4. On the same day at O.25 hours P.W.7 Dr.Sekar examined the deceased Raji and issued the accident register extract copy under Ex.P-5. On the same day at O.35 hours P.W.7 Dr.Sekar examined P.W.2 Elumalai and issued the accident register extract copy under Ex.P-6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurantakam examined as P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy received the intimation from the Madurantakam General Hospital at 7.00 a.m. On 11.5.1987 and proceeded to the Madurantakam Hospital where he learnt that the deceased and the injured were taken to Chengalpattu General Hospital and so the Sub-Inspector went to the hospital at Chengalpattu and examined P.W.1 Ravi and recorded his statement under Ex.P-1 since at that time the deceased Raji was unconscious. P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy, the Sub-Inspector of Police, recovered the blood stained dhoti M.O.3 from the deceased Raji under the mahazar Ex.P-19. Then P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy returned to Madurantakam Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.275 of 1987 at 11.30 a.m. on 11.5.1987 for the offences under Secs.341, 323, 324 and 307, I.P.C. The Sub-Inspector prepared the F.I.R. under Ex.P-20 and sent the same to the higher officials and the Magistrate. Then he took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 1.00 p.m. on that day and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and the rough sketch Ex.P-21 in the presence of P.W.5 Murthy and another witnesses Sadayandi. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth M.Os.6 and 7 under the mahazar Ex.P-3. 4. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth M.Os.6 and 7 under the mahazar Ex.P-3. 4. P.W.8 Dr.Sreedharan Unni on 11.5.1987 at 9.05 a.m. admitted the deceased Raji in Ward No.9 of Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital and Ex.P-7 is the case sheet of the deceased Raji and in view of his bad condition P.W.8 Dr.Sreedharan Unni referred the deceased Raji to the General Hospital at Madras. Ex.P-8 is the opinion given by Dr.P.W.8 Sreedharan Unni regarding the injuries found on P.W.3 Kannan and according to him the injuries found on P.W.3 are grievous in nature. Ex.P-9 is the certificate given by P.W.8 Dr.Sreedharan Unni regarding the injuries found on P.W.2 Elumalai and the injuries found on P.W.2 are simple in nature. 5. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy received the death intimation of Raji from the General Hospital Madras at 6.30 p.m. on 11.5.1987 under Ex.P-22 and thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy altered the provision of law into one under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and prepared the express report under Ex.P-23 and sent the copies of the same to his higher officials and the Magistrate. 6. On receipt of the express report at 8.00 p.m. on 11.5.1987, the Inspector of Police, P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram took up the further investigation in this case and went to the General Hospital at Madras on 12.5.1987 and he conducted the inquest over the dead body of Raji between 9.30 and 11.30 a.m. and prepared the inquest report under Ex.P-24. At the time of inquest, the Inspector P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On receipt of the requestion from the police Ex.P-13, the Doctor P.W.10 Selvaraj commenced the post mortem on the dead body of Raji at 1.10 p.m. on 12.5.1987 and he found the following injuries. (1) The left eye lid show contusion and swelling. The swelling extends over left cheek upto 3 cms. in front of left ear and over the zygoma. (2) Transversely paced superficial abrasion 5 1/2 × 0.05 cms over postero lateral aspect of right thigh 5 1/2 cms below Iliac crest at the posterior part it is wider. (1) The left eye lid show contusion and swelling. The swelling extends over left cheek upto 3 cms. in front of left ear and over the zygoma. (2) Transversely paced superficial abrasion 5 1/2 × 0.05 cms over postero lateral aspect of right thigh 5 1/2 cms below Iliac crest at the posterior part it is wider. (3) A small superficial abrasion over dorsum of right hand O.4 × O.2 cms at the base of 4th metroarpal bone; (4) Superficial abrasion over the lateral aspect of lower part of right side of chest 2 1/2 × 1 cm over the 9th rib 15 cms from midline; (5) A superficial irregular abrasion O.5 × O.2 cms over laternal aspect of posterior part of left below. (6) The left upper eyelid shows palpabral contusion, dark red in colur. The conjunctiva appears odematous. A lacerated injury 1 × 0.5 cm is seen at the inner canthus. (7) Sutured injury seen on the left side of forehead 1.5 cms from mid line starting from medial and of left eyebrow upwards 5 cms in length with 5 silk sutures. On removal of sutures it shows a lacerated injury vertically placed bone depth and gaping. Pulpy brain matter with blood comes through it. The length is 5 cms and widest breadth is 1.2 cms. The margins are irregular abrades with loss of epidermis. On the left margin it has splitting of margin. On removal of the scalp: Contusion of scalp is found surrounding the injury to an extent of 2 1/2 cms on right side 3 cms on the left side. The frontal bone shows a vertical defect from above downwards including the supersililary arch. Bone pieces seen adhering to the scalp. The brain matter is coming out. Dura is lost over the bony defect. Scalp also shows contusion on the anterior lower part of left temportal region. On further dissection bone pieces are found to be driver inside the anterior crancial loss with tagsw of dura. The fracture appears to run across the floor of anterior cranial loss just left of midline involving the left orbital roof, ethmoid bone and anterior part of sphenoid fossa and involving the medical part of right middle cranial fossa along with the cavernous sinus. Extensive sub dural and sub arachnoic haemorrhage seen over the entire care-brum. The frontal pole on the left hemisphere is cut through beyond optic chiasna. Extensive sub dural and sub arachnoic haemorrhage seen over the entire care-brum. The frontal pole on the left hemisphere is cut through beyond optic chiasna. Blood clots and bone bits are found over the base of frontal lobes along the tract. Blood clots also found over the base of cerebral hemispheres. Cerebellum also shows sub arachnoic haemorrhage Medial and interior aspect of left frontal lobe shows laceration 3 × 2.05 cms and pieces of bone sticking. The anterior medial aspect of right frontal pole also shows laceration. The left lateral ventricle is full of blood clots. Cerebro-spinal fluid is bloodstained. Length of penetrating wound from skin to the right frontal lobe involvement is 10 cms Lungs: Both congested and odematous. Stomach: contained brownish fluid. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: Congested. Hyoid Bone: Intact” The Doctor issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P-14 and he was of the opinion that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to penetrating injury on the head involving the brain. 7. The Constable P.W.12 Dhanapal handed over the dead body to the relatives of Raji after the completion of the post mortem and recovered the clothes on the body marked as M.Os.4, 5 and 8 and handed over the same to the Inspector. On 13.5.1987 the Inspector P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram examined P.W.6 Mariammal and Doctors and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 14.5.1987 the Inspector examined Thulukannam. On 16.5.1987 at 6.30 a.m. the Inspector P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram arrested the accused A-1 and A-3 near Karunghuzhi Railway station and they gave confession statements. On the same day at 10.30 a.m. the Inspector P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram arrested A-2 and A-4 near Padalam Junction road. The admissible portions in the confession statement of A-2 are marked as Exs.P-2’5 and P.26 and the admissible portions in the confession statement of A-4 are marked as Exs.P-27 and P-28. In pursuance of confession A-2 took the Inspector and pointed out the iron rod marked as M.O.1 and the same was recovered under the mahazar marked as Ex.P-29. A-4 took the Inspector and pointed out the iron pipe marked M.O.2 and the same was recovered under Ex.P-30 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Then the Inspector sent the accused to remand and also the articles recovered to the Magistrate's Court. P.W.14 Inspector Kalyanasundaram gave requisition under Ex.P-15 to send the recovered articles for chemical analysis. A-4 took the Inspector and pointed out the iron pipe marked M.O.2 and the same was recovered under Ex.P-30 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Then the Inspector sent the accused to remand and also the articles recovered to the Magistrate's Court. P.W.14 Inspector Kalyanasundaram gave requisition under Ex.P-15 to send the recovered articles for chemical analysis. P.W.11 Perumal is the Head clerk of the Magistrate's Court and he sent M.Os. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 for chemical analysis under the covering letter of the Magistrate marked as Ex.P-16. Then the report of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist Reports were received by the Magistrate and they are marked as Exs.P-17 and P.18 in this case. On 8.6.1987 the Inspector P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram examined the Doctor P.W.8 Sridharan Unni and also the Doctor P.W.10 Selvaraj. After completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet as against the accused 1 to 4 on 10.7.1987. 8. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu framed charges under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C. as against A-1 to A-4 and the charge under Sec.326, I.P.C. as against A-4 for having caused grievous injuries to the witness P.W.3 Kannan and the charge under Sec.324, I.P.C. as against A-2 For having caused simple injury to the witness P.W.2 Elumalai and read over the same to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In proof of the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and filed documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-30 and the material objects marked as M.Os. 1 to 8. 9. Then the accused 1 to 4 were questioned under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C. with regard to incriminating circumstances available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. The defence has marked four documents under Exs.D-1 to D-4, which are the wound certificates issued to the accused 2 and 4 and one Annammal by the Doctor and also the entries in the General Diary maintained by Madurantakam Police Station on 10.5.1987. The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on their side. 10. The defence has marked four documents under Exs.D-1 to D-4, which are the wound certificates issued to the accused 2 and 4 and one Annammal by the Doctor and also the entries in the General Diary maintained by Madurantakam Police Station on 10.5.1987. The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on their side. 10. On the above materials and after considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu found A-1 to A-4 guilty of the offence under Sec.304, Part I read with 34, I.P.C. instead of 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced A-1 to A-4 to undergo R.I. for 7 years each for the offence under Sec.304, Part I read with 34, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu further found A-4 guilty of the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and he further found A-2 guilty for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I., for one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal. 11. On hearing the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, the point that arises for determination is as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as to whether the appellants/accused 1 to 4 are guilty of the offences with which they have been convicted and if so, what is the sentence. 12. 12. Point: The learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused contended that the complaint given by P.W.1 Ravi marked as Ex.P-1 was recorded at 10.15 a.m. on 11.5.1987 even though the occurrence had taken place at 8.30 p.m. on the previous day i.e., 10.5.1987 and so there is delay of 14 hours in giving the complaint to the police and further the complaint given by P.W. 1 Ravi under Ex.P-1 was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police examined as P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy at 11.30 a.m. on 11.5.1987 in the Madurantakam Police Station in Crime No.275 of 1987 and the F.I.R. marked as Ex.P-20 reached the Magistrate's Court at Madurantakam at 8.30 p.m. on 11.5.87 i.e., after a delay of 9 hours even though the Magistrate Court is situate at Madurantakam where the police station of Madurantakam is also there is the same place, and so there is considerable delay in giving the complaint and in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court and that has not been explained in this case by the prosecution and in those circumstances the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant/accused. In support of the above contentions the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1) Thuliakali v. State of Tamil Nadu Thuliakali v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 Crl.L.J. 1296. (2) Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P., 1976 Crl.L.J. 1883 and Arjun Marik and others v. State of Bihar Arjun Marik and others v. State of Bihar, J.T. (1994) 2 S.C. 627. 13. The learned counsel Mr.Senthilkumar, appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor countered the above arguments by stating that the injured persons were taken to the hospital immediately in this case and there was anxiety to save the lives of the injured persons rather than going to the police station to give a complaint and so there is some delay in giving the complaint and there is no infirmity in the prosecution case especially when the occurrence as stated by the prosecution is spoken to by not less than four eye witnesses in this case examined as P.Ws. 1 to 4 and so the delay in giving the complaint and in forwarding the same to the Magistrate's Court is not fatal to the prosecution case. 14. 1 to 4 and so the delay in giving the complaint and in forwarding the same to the Magistrate's Court is not fatal to the prosecution case. 14. Sec. 157 of Crl.P.C. directs the sending of the report forthwith i.e., without any delay and immediately. The forwarding of the occurrence report forthwith i.e., without any delay and immediately. The forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and it has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word “forthwith” occurring in Sec.157 of Crl.P.C, which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is so obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Secs.157 and 159 of Crl.P.C. It is true that quite often there are valid reasons for the delay in giving the complaint and in the despatch of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate and it is not always a circumstance on the basis of which the entire prosecution case can be thrown out, but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, where the circumstances of delay may lead to serious consequences. But in the present case there are circumstances which caused serious cloud on the prosecution case. Even though the learned counsel on behalf of the Public Prosecutor stated that there was anxiety to save the lives of the injured persons and that is the reason for the delay in giving the complaint, there is no evidence on record to that effect in the testimony of eye witnesses examined as P.Ws.1 to 4. As a matter of fact, when P.W.1 Ravi, who is the author of F.I.R. in this case, was confronted about the delay in giving the complaint he would state in his chief examination and cross-examination as follows: Thus P.W.1 Ravi would state that the taxi car came at 10.30 p.m. and on seeing the blood they feared and therefore they went to the hospital at Madurantakam straight away even though the Police Station was on their way, and it did not strike them to go to the Police Station since they saw the bleeding on the deceased Raji. That was the version as spoken to by P.W.1 Ravi in the witness box. That was the version as spoken to by P.W.1 Ravi in the witness box. But when we came to the testimony of the other eye witness examined as P.W.2 Elumalai, he would state in his cross examination as follows: Thus P.W.2 Elumalai would state that he instructed P.W.1 Ravi to go to the police station and he did not go to the police station as informed by him, and P.W.2 Elumalai asked P.W.1. Ravi about the same and P.W.1 Ravi told P.W.2 Elumalai that since it was too late in the night, he did not go to the police station to give the complaint. P.W.2 Elumalai would further state in his cross examination that he did not see the accused A-2 and A-4 and the wife of A-4 in the hospital at Madurantakam on the same night, and they did not suffer any injury, and they were into attacked by the prosecution party. P.W.2 Elumalai would further depose in the first instance that the police came to the hospital at Madurantakam on the same night and later he would change his version by stating that the police did not come to the hospital at Madurantakam on the same night, and they came to the hospital at Chengalpattu only. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.2 Elumalai that he gave instruction to P.W.1 Ravi to go to the police station and notwithstanding the same P.W.1 did not go to the police station and P.W.1 Ravi explained this by stating that it was too late in the night and that is why he did not go to the police station. Such version was not at all spoken to by P.W.1 Ravi in his evidence whereas P.W.2 Elumalai would give such an explanation, and it is not acceptable on the face of it. 15. P.W.5 Murthy is the person who telephoned from the rice mill to being a taxi to take the injured person in this case to the hospital at Madurantakam. When questioned as to why he did not inform the police on the same telephone about this occurrence, he gave answer in his cross examination by stating as follows: Therefore according to P.W.5 Murthy he did not give information to the police station by phone because P.W.1 Ravi informed him that he would go to the police station and lodge a complaint. It is obvious from the answers of P.W.5 Murthy that P.W.1 Ravi should have gone to the police station and notwithstanding the same, P.W.1 did not go to the police station and give a complaint at the earliest point of time. Thus there is considerable delay in giving the complaint to the police station by the prosecution party and this delay is not explained by any acceptable reason. 16. Even ignoring the delay in giving the complaint to the police station by the prosecution party, there is delay in the despatch of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court in this case. The F.I.R. in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral testimony adduced at the time of trial. The importance of the immediate despatch of the F.I.R. can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police and the prompt despatch of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of the eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in sending the same to the Magistrate's Court quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of the delay, the report not only gets beret of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court should be satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the occurrence had been witnessed by P.W.1, Ravi P.W.4 Mariammal father-in-law of P.W.1 Ravi and mother-in-law of P.W.1 Ravi and other adjacent owners of the houses and neighbours in the colony. Notwithstanding the same, none of them had reported about this occurrence to the police on the same night. None of the villagers made any report at the police station for more than 14 hours after the occurrence even though the police station is 8 kms away from the place of occurrence. Notwithstanding the same, none of them had reported about this occurrence to the police on the same night. None of the villagers made any report at the police station for more than 14 hours after the occurrence even though the police station is 8 kms away from the place of occurrence. The said circumstances would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those eye witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused/appellants upon it. No explanation is offered for the extraordinary delay of 9 hours in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court at Madurantakam even though the Madurantakam police Station and Magistrate's Court are situate in the same town of Madurantakam. This is a circumstance which provide a legitimate basis to discredit the prosecution version and the delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court will be to introduce improvements and embellisments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. Therefore, in the present case there is delay in lodging in complaint as well as in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court and that delay has not been explained by any one of the witnesses satisfactorily and in such circumstances the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants/accused in this case. 17. Even assuming and without admitting that the delay in lodging the complaint and the delay on sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate's Court is not fatal to the prosecution case, let us consider the prosecution version from the other angle as to whether it was established beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. According to the chargesheet filed in this case the occurrence had taken place near the house of the prosecution witness by name Raghavan. The Doctor sword as P.W.9 Arthanari examined the deceased Raji at 11.05 p.m. on 10.5.1987 and before the Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari, the deceased Raji told the Doctor that he sustained the injuries at the residence of Govindan. who is none other than the 4th accused in this case. The Doctor sword as P.W.9 Arthanari examined the deceased Raji at 11.05 p.m. on 10.5.1987 and before the Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari, the deceased Raji told the Doctor that he sustained the injuries at the residence of Govindan. who is none other than the 4th accused in this case. This version of the deceased Raji is affirmed by one of the eye witnesses examined as P.W.4 Mariammal, who stated in her cross examination in the following words in Tamil: P.W.1 Ravi also shifted the place of occurrence by stating in his cross examination in the following words in Tamil: Therefore P.W.1 Ravi would state that the occurrence had taken place near the house of the 2nd accused Rajagopal. So from the answers given by the eye witnesses examined as P.W.1 and P.W.4 the occurrence had not taken place near the house of Raghavan as set out in the charge, but the occurrence had taken place in a different place i.e., bear the house of the 2nd accused or the 4th accused. In those circumstances, the prosecution version as spoken to by eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 that the prosecution party was attacked in the first instance cannot be true. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor brought to my notice the place of occurrence as mentioned in the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P-2, the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P-3, and the accident register copy of the deceased Raji marked as Ex.P-10. The observation mahazar marked as Ex.P-2 sites about the place of occurrence in the following manner: So the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P-2 did not say that the occurrence had taken place near the house of Raghavan as mentioned in the charges framed as against the appellants/accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. 19. The seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P-3 states about the place of occurrence in the following words in Tamil: So even according to the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P-3 the occurrence had taken place near the house of the 1st accused Elumalai and not near the house of the prosecution witness by name Raghavan as mentioned in the charges framed by the lower court. 20. 20. The wound certificate given by P.W.9 Dr.Arthenari for the injuries found on the deceased Raji marked as Ex.P-10 would also disclose that the deceased Raji was assaulted on 10.5.1987 at 9.00 p.m. at Govindan's residence, who is none other than the 4th accused in this case. Therefore the wound certificate of the deceased Raji marked as Ex.P-10 would also support the version of the accused that the occurrence has taken place near the house of the accused and not anywhere else. 21. Thus the prosecution documents marked as Exs.P2, P-3 and P-10 would lend support to the defence version that the bleedings was found near the house of the accused and not near the house of the One Raghavan, who is a prosecution witness as mentioned in the charges framed by the lower court, and so the occurrence could not have taken place near the house of Raghavan as set out by the prosecution in this case. In other words, the place of occurrence itself has been changed by the investigating agency i.e., it has been changed from the house of the accused to the house of one Raghavan. This circumstances would also falsify the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are eye witnesses in this case and who stated that the accused are the aggressors. 22. Even brushing aside the shifting of the place of occurrence by the prosecution from the house of accused to the house of the prosecution witness by name one Raghavan is not serious one in this case, the prosecution has suppressed the fact that the 2nd accused and the 4th accused and the wife of the 4th accused viz., Annammal sustained injuries in the same transaction and in the same occurrence and this is evident from the following facts. 23. 23. On 11.5.1987 the Doctor sworn as P.W.9 Arthanari examined the 4th accused Govindan at about 00.40 hours on the midnight of 10.5.1987 and on the early hours of 11.5.1987 and found a contusion on the right forearm and an abrasion over the right deleted region and a wheel mark over the back on the vertebral sie of the border of the right scapuls, and the Doctor P.W.9 issued the accident register copy under Ex.D1 for the injuries suffered by A-4 Govindan, who alleged that these injuries suffered by A-4 Govindan, who alleged that these injuries were caused on him at his residence by known person with “Kombu”, “uruttu Thadi” and iron bar and he was bitten by mouth at 9.00 p.m. on 10.5.1987. The very same Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari examined the 2nd accused Rajagopal at about 1.00 a.m. On 11.5.1987 for certain injuries said to have been caused on 10.5.1987 at 9.00 p.m. at his residence by known person with ‘“thadi Kombu” and hands and the Doctor found a contusion over the lateral and of left clavicle, an abrasion over left shoulder, a contusion over the left thumb metacarpal phalangeral and an abrasion over the right wrist, and the Doctor P.W.9 Arthanari issued the accident register copy marked as E.D.2 for the injuries found on A-2 Rajagopal. On the same day at about 1.10.a.m. P.W.9 Dr. Arthanari examined one Annammal, wife of the 4th accused Govindan, for certain injuries said to have been caused to her on 10.5.1987 at about 9.00 p.m. at her residence by known persons with “Thadi Kombu” and the Doctor found a puhctured wound over the scalp right parietal region, an abrasion over right forearm ulnar aspect, a contusion over the right forearm and acentusion on the right scapula spines and Ex.D-3 is the accident register copy issued by P.W.9 Dr. Arthanari for the injuries found Annammal, wife of A-4. Thus from the version of the accused as given to the Doctor examined as P.W.9 Arthanari, the occurrence had taken place near the house of the accused and this is affirmed by the witnesses examined as P.W.1 Ravi and P.W.4 Mariammal. The 4th accused Govindan gave a complaint to the very same police station at 1.00 p.m. on 10.5.1987 and the same finds a place in the general diary maintained in the said Madurantakam police station Marked as Ex.D4 in this case. The 4th accused Govindan gave a complaint to the very same police station at 1.00 p.m. on 10.5.1987 and the same finds a place in the general diary maintained in the said Madurantakam police station Marked as Ex.D4 in this case. The entry in the General diary marked as Ex.D-4 states that the 4th accused Govindan appeared before the police station and gave a complaint stating that the deceased Raji and the witness P.W.2 Elumalai attacked them with sticks and hands and caused injuries and thereupon the injured persons viz., the accused 2 and 4 and the wife of the 4th accused were sent to Madurantakam hospital with hospital memos. That complaint of the 4th accused by name Govindan has not seen the light of the day in this case. So the complaint given by A.4 as mentioned in the General Diary marked as Ex.D-4 is earlier in point of time and that has been suppressed by the prosecution in this case. Not only the complaint of A-4 was suppressed by the investigating agency while they were examined in the chief-examination, but also the injuries suffered by A-2 and A-4 and his wife were also suppressed by the eye witnesses examined in this case in their chief-examination. 24. P.W.1 Ravi has stated in his cross examination in the following words in Tamil: Likewise P.W.2 Elumalai's testimony is in the following words in Tamil in his cross examination: Likewise P.W.3 Kannan would state in his cross examination in the following words in Tamil: The other witnesses P.W.4 Mariammal pleaded ignorance as to whether any of the accused suffered injuries during this occurrence. 25. Thus on a careful scrutiny of the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are eye witnesses in this case, would reveal that they have suppressed the fact that the accused 2 and 4 and the wife of the 4th accused suffered injuries during the course of the same occurrence and during the course of the same occurrence and during the course of the same transaction, which has been brought out on record by the cross examination of Doctor in the hospital at Madurantakam examined as P.W.9 Arthanari and also by marking the General Diary entries marked as Exs.D-4 and D-5. We find from the deposition of the Doctor examined as P.W.9 Arthanari coupled with the wound certificates marked as Exs.D-1 to D-3 that the accused 2 and 4 and the wife of the 4th accused suffered injuries, and same of the injuries were on the scapula region and clavicle region, and some of the were on the exposed part of their bodies, and in such circumstances one would normally expect the prosecution witnesses to explain how these accused viz., A-2 and A-4 sustained such injuries. No explanation worth the name forthcoming in the testimony of the eye witnesses examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 as to how the accused 2 and 4 and the wife of the 4th accused injuries in this occurrence. On the other hand, the eye witnesses have suppressed the fact that these two accused suffered injuries in the same transaction. The defence version has to be evaluated on the basis of the prosecution evidence tendered in the present case. The defence version is that they were attacked in the first instance in their houses which is the place of occurrence and they have got the right of private defence. The fact remains that the accused 2 and 4 sustained serious injuries and some of them on the scapula region. If the prosecution witnesses examined as P.Ws-1 to 4 shy away from the relaity and do not expalin the injuries caused to A-2 and A-4, it casts a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case, since the evidence shows that these injuries were sustained by A-2 and A-4 in the same occurrence. It gives an impression that the eye witnesses examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 are suppressing some part of the incident and these witnesses have failed to explain the injuries sustained by A-2 and A-4 and in such circumstances the appellants accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. This view gains support from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Stare of Rajasthan v. Madho Stare of Rajasthan v. Madho, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1065. 26. Besides the suppression of a portion of the occurrence by eye witnesses in this case, the Investigating agency viz., the Sub-Inspector of police examined as P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy and the Inspector of Police examined as P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram did not give any explanation for the injuries sustained by some of the accused and they did not give the true version. 26. Besides the suppression of a portion of the occurrence by eye witnesses in this case, the Investigating agency viz., the Sub-Inspector of police examined as P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy and the Inspector of Police examined as P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram did not give any explanation for the injuries sustained by some of the accused and they did not give the true version. They have not taken any step file the wound certificates issued by Doctor examined as P.W.9 Dr. Arthanari for the injuries sustained by A-2 and A-4 in this case though they were sent by the same police with hospital memos as mentioned in the entries in the General Diary marked as Exs.D-4 and D-5. 27. The complaint given by the 4th accused has not been placed before the trial court in this case by the police and there is no reason as to why they have wife held the complaint given by the 4th accused with regard to the same occurrence. The Sub-Inspector of Police examined as P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy would state in his cross examination in the following words in Tamil: 28. On the other hand the Inspector of Police examined as P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram would state in the following words in Tamil: 29. Thus while it is the testimony of the Sub-Inspector of Police examined as P.W.13 Krishnamoorthy that the complaint given by the 4th accused and registered in Crime No.274 of 1987 was investigated by a Head Constable, the Inspector of Police examined as P.W.14 Kalyanasundaram would state that it was investigated in the first instance by the Sub-Inspector of Police and later by him. The version of P.Ws.13 and 14 are diametrically opposite to each other and it is obvious that the Investigating officers are not speaking the truth with regard to the complaint given by A4 in this case. In such circumstances the testimony of eye witnesses has to be disbelieved but also the evidence of the Investigating Officers examined as P.Ws.13 and 14 has to be discarded. In such circumstances the testimony of eye witnesses has to be disbelieved but also the evidence of the Investigating Officers examined as P.Ws.13 and 14 has to be discarded. Considering the above facts and circumstances 1 am to held that the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants/accused and so this appeal has to be allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu in Sessions Case No.205 of 1987 dated 14.10.1988 has to be set aside, and the appellants accuses are to be acquitted of the offence with which they are charged and they must be set at liberty, and consequently 1 answer this point in favour of the appellants accused and as against the respondent/complainant. 30. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu in Sessions Case No.205 of 1987 dated 14.10.1988 are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of all the offences with which they are charged. The appellants/accused are set at liberty and the bail bonds are hereby cancelled. S.S.-----Appeal allowed.