JUDGMENT N. Dhinakar, J. 1. Appellant was the first accused in Sessions Case No. 51 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. He was tried along with two other accused for charges under S.302 and 307 read with 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the second and third accused in the case have to be acquitted and accordingly acquitted them, while he convicted the appellant/first accused in the case for offences under S.302 and 324 IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the former offence and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the latter offence with a direction that the sentences will run concurrently. Hence the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows: For the sake of convenience, the appellant will be referred to as A1 and the acquitted accused as A2 and A3 in this judgment. A1 and A2 are brothers and the third accused was their servant and they were engaged in rearing ducks. They were residing 3 Kms. away from the scene place. P.W. 1 and her family were also rearing ducks. P.W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W. 2 is her father. RW. 12 is the brother of P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 is the sister in law of the deceased, i.e., the wife of P.W. 12. The deceased along with her husband P.W. 2, her daughter. P.W. I and her son, Vinod Cherian were residing near the scene place. On 25-5-1992 there was a quarrel between P.W. 2 and the first accused for which a complaint, Ext. P15 was laid by the wife of the first accused at Aranmula Police Station with P.W. 14, the Head Constable. The police called the first accused and P.W. 2 and warned them not to quarrel in future. 3. On 11-9-1992 at about 3.30 p.m. P.W. 1 was sitting and talking with her friend P.W. 6 and the ducks belonging to her were pasturing in a paddy field belonging to one Ponnachan. While she was so sitting in the house of P.W. 6 she heard quacking cries of the ducks and when she looked up, she saw A1 to A3 taking away her ducks along with their ducks. While she was so sitting in the house of P.W. 6 she heard quacking cries of the ducks and when she looked up, she saw A1 to A3 taking away her ducks along with their ducks. P.W. 1 then reached the place and asked the first accused as to why he was taking the ducks for which A1 replied saying "I am waiting for you". She cried aloud and on hearing the cries, the deceased came running from her house, (which is noted as No. 15 in the plan, Ext. P10). The deceased asked A1 to release the ducks, for which A1 replied "we are waiting for you". A1 then took out M.O. 1 knife and stabbed the deceased on the left chest. The deceased fell down. Then A1 to A3 beat the deceased with bamboo stick, M.O. 2 and coffee stick, M.O. 3. On hearing the cries of P.W. 1 and the deceased, the father of P.W. 1 came running from his house. After the deceased fell down, A1 stabbed on the back of the head of the deceased. Blood came out. P.W. 1 then caught hold of A1's right hand in which he was holding the knife. At that time A2 and A3 beat her. P.W. 2 came and lifted the deceased and A1 stabbed P.W. 2 on his back. On being beaten by A2 and A3 P.W. I lost the grip of A1's hand. Thereafter A1 stabbed P.W. 2 on his back, right ear and left hand. A1 also stabbed P.W. I on her right shoulder. A2 and A3 beat P.W. I on the back. She cried aloud and on hearing the cries, people gathered. According to P.W. 1, the occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 8, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and one Chinnamma. When people came running, the accused ran away towards the east with the weapons in heir hands. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 and the deceased were taken to the District Hospital at Kozhencherry by P.W. 8 and Chinnamma, where Dr. P.W. 7 on examination, pronounced the deceased dead. He admitted PWs'. 1 and 2 in the hospital. Exts. P5 and P6 are the wound certificates issued by the doctor in respect of PWs. 1 and 2. 4. On receiving telephonic information from the hospital that PWs. P.W. 7 on examination, pronounced the deceased dead. He admitted PWs'. 1 and 2 in the hospital. Exts. P5 and P6 are the wound certificates issued by the doctor in respect of PWs. 1 and 2. 4. On receiving telephonic information from the hospital that PWs. 1 and 2 are admitted in the District Hospital, Kozhencherry, P.W. 15 went to the hospital at 5.30 p.m. on the same day and obtained the statement, Ext. P1 from P.W. 1. He also took the body notes of the injured witnesses. P.W. 15 then returned to the police station and registered a crime in Crime No. 166/92 at 7.30 p.m. for offences under S.302 and 307 read with 34 IPC against the accused. Ext. P1(a) is the first information report. Thereafter intimation was sent to P.W. 16, the Circle Inspector. 5. On receipt of the information about the registration of the crime, P.W. 16, the Circle Inspector, took up investigation in the case on 12-9-1992 and reached the hospital where he conducted inquest over the dead body between 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. in the presence of panchayatdars. He then took into custody, the gold ear rings, a mundu and a skirt found on the dead body. Thereafter, he gave a requisition to the doctor to conduct post mortem over the dead body. 6. On receipt of requisition, P.W. 7, the Civil Surgeon at the District Hospital, Kozhencherry conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries: 1. An incised wound of 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the temporal region of the scalp. 2. An incised penetrating wound of 2.5 cm x 2 cm x 12 cm on the left side of chest wall second inter coastal space; chest wall was penetrated cutting the left upper lobe of the lungs. Pericardium and the wall of the right atrium and ventricles were cut. Chest cavity contained 1700 ml. of blood. Chambers of the heart were empty. Left lung was collapsed. Outer end of the wound showed splitting of skin and inner end was clearly cut. The tract of the wound was directed backwards and to right. Minimum depth of the wound was 12 cm". Chest cavity contained 1700 ml. of blood. Chambers of the heart were empty. Left lung was collapsed. Outer end of the wound showed splitting of skin and inner end was clearly cut. The tract of the wound was directed backwards and to right. Minimum depth of the wound was 12 cm". He was of the opinion that the deceased died on account of haemorrhage and shock caused by injury to the heart and lungs and that the said injuries would have been caused with a weapon like M.O. 1. Ext. P4 is the post mortem certificate. 7. In the meanwhile, P.W. 15, the Sub Inspector, on getting information that the accused admitted at the Government Hospital, Thiruvalla went there and recorded the statement from the first accused under Ext. D4 and registered a case in Crime No. 167/92 at Aranmula Police Station. P.W. 16 continued his investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. and prepared Ext. P7, the scene mahazar. He recovered M.Os. 2, 3 and 10 to 12 from the scene of occurrence. He then prepared a memorandum to search the house of the first accused and sent it to the court and the said memorandum stands marked as Ext. P13 in this case. The search conducted in the house of the first accused proved futile. Ext. P14 is the search list. He then seized the blouse and brassier produced by her husband's sister under a mahazar, Ext. P13. He gave a letter to the Medical Director at Thiruvalla Govt. Hospital requesting him to transfer the accused from Thiruvalla Government Hospital to the District Hospital, Kozhencherry. He seized Ext. P15, the complaint earlier given by the wife of the first accused. After the accused were discharged on 22-9-1992 they were taken to Aranmula Police Station and arrested at 2.30 p.m. The accused were then questions. On questioning, the first accused came out with a statement, in pursuance, of which M.O. 1, the knife was recovered from underneath the haystack kept in the north western side of the house of the first accused. This was at 9.30 a.m. on 23-9-1992, and the mahazar prepared for the recovery of M.O. 1 is Ext. P8. The accused were then remanded. M.O. s. were sent to the court with a request to send them for chemical analysis. Ext. P16 is the report of the chemical analyst. This was at 9.30 a.m. on 23-9-1992, and the mahazar prepared for the recovery of M.O. 1 is Ext. P8. The accused were then remanded. M.O. s. were sent to the court with a request to send them for chemical analysis. Ext. P16 is the report of the chemical analyst. After completing investigation, he laid a final report against the accused. 7. To prove the above allegations, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exts. P1 to P16 as well as M.Os. 1 to 13. 9. When questioned on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, the accused denied their complicity and pleaded innocence. It is their case that they were attacked by ten persons belonging to the prosecution party in which the first accused sustained a grievous injury and that A2 and A3 also sustained injuries on their vital parts. They have further stated that RW. 15 while recording the statement given by the first accused under Ext. D4 distorted the said version and registered a case in Crime No. 167/92 only with a view to strengthen the case in Crime No. 166/92. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused. 10. Counsel for the first accused/appellant contended before us that in as much as the prosecution has failed to give an explanation for the injuries found on the first accused as well as on the other accused, the first accused is entitled for an acquittal as the witnesses in the case have suppressed the genesis and original of the case. We have heard the Public Prosecution. 11. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 3.30 p.m. on 11-9-1992 and the same was witnessed by PWs 1 to 6, 8 and 12 and of these witnesses PWs 3, 5 and 12 have turned hostile. P.W. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the husband of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the deceased's brother in law. P.W. 8 is the sister in law of the deceased. P.W. 6 is a friend of P.W. 1 which means that all the eye witnesses in the case are relatives of the deceased except for P.W. 6 who is admittedly a friend of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 is the deceased's brother in law. P.W. 8 is the sister in law of the deceased. P.W. 6 is a friend of P.W. 1 which means that all the eye witnesses in the case are relatives of the deceased except for P.W. 6 who is admittedly a friend of P.W. 1. The case of the prosecution is that at about 3.30 p.m. the accused attempted to take away the ducks belonging to the prosecution party along with their ducks and when questioned, the deceased was stabbed resulting in her death. So, the immediate provocation for the occurrence that took place was the action of the accused in taking away the ducks belonging to the deceased. P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated that when she heard the quacking cries of the ducks, she looked up and found that the accused were taking away their ducks along with the ducks belonging to the accused and when questioned by her and the deceased, the deceased was immediately stabbed. This evidence, apart being artificial is also unacceptable to us in view of the materials available on record. Ext. P7 is the scene mahazar and Ext. P10 is the rough sketch. A perusal of these two documents indicate that there were two groups of ducks, situated at a distance of 250 ft from one another and if so, the present case of the prosecution that the accused were taking away the ducks of the prosecution party along with their ducks cannot be true. In fact, the eye witnesses have admitted that when they came running to the scene, they saw two groups of ducks at two different places, which cuts the very root of the prosecution case. The accused, in their evidence have stated that they also sustained injuries. The first accused sustained grievous injuries, while the other accused have sustained injuries on their vital parts. When questioned about the injuries found on the accused, the witnesses have uniformly stated that they did not notice any injury on any of the accused. In short, they have denied the injuries sustained by the accused. The prosecution would like to have it that the accused sustained injuries 15 minutes after the occurrence in this case. When questioned about the injuries found on the accused, the witnesses have uniformly stated that they did not notice any injury on any of the accused. In short, they have denied the injuries sustained by the accused. The prosecution would like to have it that the accused sustained injuries 15 minutes after the occurrence in this case. It is the case of the prosecution that after the occurrence in this case at 3.30 pm., the accused were attacked by Vinod Cherian, son of the deceased, Koshi and P.W. 12 at about 3.45 p.m. in the field. In short, their case is that there were two different occurrences, one at 3.30 p.m. when the deceased and PWs 1 and 2 sustained injuries and the other at 3.45 p.m. when the accused have sustained injuries. We are unable to accept this version of the prosecution case. Even a perusal of Ext. D4, which was in fact disowned by the accused before the Trial Court would indicate that there was only one occurrence and it should have taken place at 3.30 pm. In Ext. D4, it is stated that 30 minutes after 3 p.m. there was a quarrel between the parties and that the accused sustained injuries during the said quarrel, which means that the occurrence took place at 3.30 p.m.; but for reasons not known, P.W. 15 while registering the first information report under Ext. D4(a) has mentioned the time of occurrence in the column meant for it as 3.45 p.m. It is not known from which source, P.W. 15 came to the conclusion that the accused have sustained injuries at 3.45 p.m. When P.W. 15 was specifically questioned on this aspect, he came out with another strange explanation that because it was stated that the occurrence took place 30 minutes after 3 p.m. he inferred that the occurrence took place at about 3.45 p.m. and accordingly mentioned the time of occurrence in Ext. D4(a) as 3.45 p.m. In this connection, a useful reference can be made to the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 8. PWs 1 and 4 have stated that the occurrence lasted for about half an hour and P.W. 8 stated that it lasted for about 45 minutes, which means that the accused must have sustained injuries during the course of the same transaction in which the deceased sustained injuries. PWs 1 and 4 have stated that the occurrence lasted for about half an hour and P.W. 8 stated that it lasted for about 45 minutes, which means that the accused must have sustained injuries during the course of the same transaction in which the deceased sustained injuries. The case of the prosecution that the accused were attacked at 3.45 p.m. after the deceased was attacked cannot also be true in view of the evidence of P.W. 1 wherein she has stated that after the deceased was attacked, people gathered and the accused ran away from the scene taking away the weapons and disappeared from her eye sight. If the accused left the scene of occurrence with the weapons and disappeared from the eye sight of P.W. 1, it is impossible for us to infer that the accused were attacked 15 minutes thereafter by Vinod Cherian, Koshy and P.W. 12. It is also pertinent to note that P.W. 1 has stated, while leaving the scene, the accused had taken away M.Os. 1 to 3, the weapons used by them. On the contrary, when P.W. 16 visited the scene at 11.30 a.m. on 12-9-1992, he found M.Os. 2 and 3, the sticks at the spot. If really, the accused had taken away M.Os. 2 and 3 which they used to beat the witnesses, they could not have been found by the investigating officer at the scene of occurrence on the next day. In this connection, the evidence of P.W. 1 that M.O. 1 knife was shown to her three days after the occurrence at the hospital also assumes importance. If M.O. 1 was shown to her 3 days after the occurrence, then the case of the prosecution that it was recovered on 23-9-1992 also cannot be accepted as a true version. The accused have suggested to all the witnesses that the deceased and her relatives numbering ten attacked the accused, resulting in grievous injuries to A1 and injuries on vital parts of A2 and A3. This suggestion is probabilised by the very admission of P.W. 1 when in her evidence she has admitted that on her side, there were ten persons whereas on the side of the accused, there were only three. This suggestion is probabilised by the very admission of P.W. 1 when in her evidence she has admitted that on her side, there were ten persons whereas on the side of the accused, there were only three. On the materials, we hold that the accused have sustained injuries during the course of the same transaction in which the deceased sustained injuries and that the prosecution has no explanation for the injuries found on them. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) the Supreme Court held that in a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw three inferences and they are: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; and (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The Supreme Court further held that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case. We have already held earlier that the witnesses have denied the injuries on the accused and that all the witnesses were related to the deceased. We are unable to place any reliance on those witnesses. 12. According to the prosecution, for the occurrence that took place at 3.30 p.m. Ext. P1 came to be recorded at about 5.30 p.m. by P.W. 15 at the District Hospital, Kozhencherry. It is not in dispute that Ext. P1(a), the first information report in the case reached the Magistrate only on 14-9-1993 and there is no explanation for the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate. When questioned, P.W. 15 has admitted that it has reached the court only on 14-9-1992. It is not in dispute that Ext. P1(a), the first information report in the case reached the Magistrate only on 14-9-1993 and there is no explanation for the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate. When questioned, P.W. 15 has admitted that it has reached the court only on 14-9-1992. The prosecution has no explanation for the said delay. The learned Sessions Judge condoned the delay by observing that 12-9-1992 was a second Saturday and 13-9-1992 was a Sunday and hence Ext. P1 was received by the Magistrate only on 14-9-1992. The fact that 12-9-1992 and 13-9-1992 were holidays cannot be the reason for the delay in the first information report reaching the court. In Arjun Marik and others v. State of Bihar (JT 1994 (2) SC 627) the Supreme Court while dealing with a contention that the delay in the first information report reaching the court was on account f the intervening holidays held that if such a practice is prevalent, it must be deprecated and it is high time that the authorities concerned should wake up and see that the provisions of S.157 CrPC. are complied with in letter and spirit. Though the delay itself may not be significant in a given case, we are of the view that in view of the discussions made earlier, the delay in the first information report reaching the court is also relevant in this case, which delay also throws considerable doubts about the prosecution version. On the discussions, we are of the view that the accused/appellant is entitled for a benefit of doubt and the same is given to him. The appeal is allowed. The accused/appellant is acquitted and he will be released forthwith from jail, unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.