Judgment :- N.DHINAKAR, J. The appellant, who in this judgment will be referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience, was tried before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Sessions Case No.21 of 2000 on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 7.00 p.m. on 9.10.1998, he cut Kuppusamy, the deceased in the case, with an aruval on account of prior enmity and that on account of the injuries suffered, the said Kuppusamy died at about 1.45 a.m. on 10.10.1998 at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, where he was admitted for treatment. The learned Sessions Judge finding the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and hence, the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case are as follows:- P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is the agnate of the deceased. The accused and the deceased were the residents of Kattupalayam. P.W.1 had six acres of land and the accused had four acres of land adjacent to the land belonging to P.W.1. About 18 years prior to the date of incident, P.W.1 was beaten by the henchmen engaged by the accused and a criminal complaint was lodged at the police station leading to the prosecution of the accused. Thereafter, the accused and P.W.1 were not on talking terms. In between the land of P.W.1 and the land of the accused, there is a lake and adjacent to the lake, there were a neem tree and a jujube tree. On 8.10.1998, P.W.1 cut those trees as they were found to be obstructing the electrical wires. The accused picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 as to how he could cut the trees, since they belong to him. A panchayat was convened on 9.10.1998 in connection with that and at the panchayat, P.Ws.5 and 6 participated. The panchayatdars took a decision that the services of a surveyor can be requisitioned to measure the land and decide the issue. At about 10.00 a.m. on the same day, a surveyor was brought and after measuring the land, the surveyor intimated the villagers that the trees belong to P.W.1. On hearing this, the accused threatened the deceased and his father, P.W.1, with their lives and left the place. 3. At about 6.00 p.m. on 9.10.1998, P.W.1 was returning from his land along with P.Ws.2 and 3. On hearing this, the accused threatened the deceased and his father, P.W.1, with their lives and left the place. 3. At about 6.00 p.m. on 9.10.1998, P.W.1 was returning from his land along with P.Ws.2 and 3. The deceased was proceeding in front of them at a distance of 10 feet. While they were approaching the land of the accused, the accused came out of a bush and saying that he will not leave the deceased Kuppusamy and his father alive, cut Kuppusamy on the head and on the left hand. Three cuts were inflicted upon him. P.Ws.1 to 3 raised alarm and asked the accused not to cut the deceased. The accused ran away from the place taking with him the aruval. P.Ws.1 to 3 went near the injured Kuppusamy and found him with bleeding injuries. P.W.2 went and brought a van and thereafter, the injured Kuppusamy was placed in the van and removed to Government Hospital, Palladam. He was produced before P.W.8, the casualty medical officer, at 8.30 p.m. The doctor examined him and found on his person the following injuries:- 1.Cut injury 6 cm x 2 cm bone-deep over frontal bone left side with fracture of the bone. 2.Fracture of left forearm bone near elbow joint. 3.Fracture of left forearm near wrist. The doctor issued Ex.P-9, a copy of the accident register, and since the doctor found that the injuries on Kuppusamy are serious, she referred him to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. The doctor also sent an intimation to the police authorities about the same. The injured Kuppusamy was taken from Government Hospital, Palladam, to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, by the witnesses and was produced before P.W.9, the doctor, at 9.35 p.m. on the same day along with a copy of the accident register, Ex.P-9, issued by P.W.8. The doctor, P.W.9 admitted the injured Kuppusamy. Ex.P-10 is a copy of the accident register issued by him in respect of the injuries noted on Kuppusamy. After the admission, P.W.10 performed a surgery on the injured Kuppusamy; but, in spite of the treatment given by the doctors, the injured Kuppusamy breathed his last at about 1.45 a.m. on 9/10.10.1998. 4. P.W.1, after the death of his son, proceeded to Avinashipalayam Police Station, and narrated the incident to P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing. The said complaint of P.W.1 is Ex.P-1. 4. P.W.1, after the death of his son, proceeded to Avinashipalayam Police Station, and narrated the incident to P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing. The said complaint of P.W.1 is Ex.P-1. P.W.15, on the basis of Ex.P-1, registered a case in Crime No.245 of 1998 against the accused under Section 302 IPC by preparing express reports. Ex.P-21 is a copy of the printed first information report. Express reports were despatched to the higher officials. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, who was in-charge of Avinashipalayam Police Station, was informed over V.H.F. about the registration of a grave crime. On receipt of the information, P.W.16 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached it at 6.00 a.m., where he obtained a copy of the printed first information report. He took up investigation in the crime. 5. P.W.16, on taking up investigation in the crime, reached the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m., where he prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-4, and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-22, in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He seized M.O.7, a Citizen watch, M.O.8, a pair of slippers, which were lying near the scene of occurrence, under a mahazar Ex.P-5 attested by witnesses. He also seized M.O.9, blood-stained earth, and M.O.10, sample earth, under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P-6, attested by the same witnesses. Thereafter, he left the scene of occurrence and proceeded to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, where inquest over the dead body of Kuppusamy was conducted between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars and at the time of inquest, P.Ws.1 to 7 were questioned and their statements were recorded. Ex.P-23 is the inquest report. The officer, after the inquest, issued a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy. 6. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.12, Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted autopsy on the body of Kuppusamy and found the following external injuries:- 1.An antero-posteriorly sutured lacerated wound 13 x 1 cm x craneal cavity deep seen over left fronto-parietal region. The anterior inner end is on the medical border of left eye-brow. The posterior outer end is 7 cm lateral and left to the midline in the vertex. On dissection, a bony defect of 12 x 9 cm size in the left fronto-parietal area. The bone of the defect found absent and packed with gel foam material (surgically removed). The anterior inner end is on the medical border of left eye-brow. The posterior outer end is 7 cm lateral and left to the midline in the vertex. On dissection, a bony defect of 12 x 9 cm size in the left fronto-parietal area. The bone of the defect found absent and packed with gel foam material (surgically removed). A tear in the dura seen 3 x 1 cm through which odematous brain matter bulging out. 2.An incised sutured (surgical) wound 2 x 1 cm x cavity-deep with a drainage tube seen 6 cm above the left eye-brow. The drain communicates with the bony defect. 3.A horizontal sutured lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm x bone-deep in the left parietal area 6 cm from the midline and 8 cm above left ear. 4.A horizontal sutured lacerated wound 4 x 1 cm x bone-deep present in the right parietal region 5 cm from midline and 12 cm above right ear. 5.A lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm x bone-deep seen on the outer aspect of left elbow through which fracture upper end of ulna seen. Another lacerated wound 2 x 1 x bone-deep 7 cm below left elbow in the outer aspect of left forearm exposing the fracture left radius with surrounding bruising. 6.An abrasion of 3 x 3 cm seen in the front of left shoulder. Two linear abrasions of 7 x 0.5 cm size seen below left clavicle. The doctor issued Ex.P-13, the post-mortem certificate, reserving his opinion as to the cause of death and later, issued Ex.P-15, the final opinion, opining that the deceased died on account of multiple injuries and its complications. 7. P.W.16 continuing with his investigation, seized M.O.1 a blood-stained shirt, M.O.2 a blood-stained dhoti, M.O.3 a blood-stained lungi, M.O.4 an underwear and M.O.5 a half-sleeve shirt under Form 95 which stands marked as Ex.P-25 in the case. At 2.00 p.m. on 12.10.1998, in the presence of P.W.7, the accused was arrested while he was standing in front of a rice mill. The accused was questioned and he gave a statement. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the statement, Ex.P-7, given by the accused, the police party was taken to Kattupalayam and from a bush behind his house, M.O.1, the aruval, was produced and the same was seized under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P-8, attested by P.W.7. P.W.16 questioned P.W.7 and recorded his statement. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the statement, Ex.P-7, given by the accused, the police party was taken to Kattupalayam and from a bush behind his house, M.O.1, the aruval, was produced and the same was seized under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P-8, attested by P.W.7. P.W.16 questioned P.W.7 and recorded his statement. The accused was brought to the police station and sent for lock-up. On 24.11.1998, the material objects seized were sent to court. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.17. P.W.17, on taking up investigation from P.W.16, verified the investigation conducted by his predecessor, P.W.16, and on 26.1.1999, questioned P.W.12, the doctor who conducted autopsy, as well as P.W.13, Grade-I Police Constable. On 28.1.1999, he examined P.Ws.8 to 10, the doctors, and recorded their statements. On the same day, post-mortem certificate was obtained. On 28.7.1999, the final report was filed against the accused under Section 302 IPC after the completion of investigation. 8. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side. 9. The prosecution, to establish that Kuppusamy died on account of homicidal violence, examined P.W.12, who conducted autopsy. According to P.W.12, on conducting autopsy, he found the injuries, which he noted in the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-13, and all the injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1. According to him, the deceased would have died on account of the cumulative effect of all the injuries. On the medical evidence, we hold that Kuppusamy died on account of homicidal violence, which fact is also not disputed before us by the defence. 10. The prosecution, before the trial court, examined three persons as P.Ws.1 to 3 to establish that the accused inflicted the injuries on Kuppusamy leading to his death and of the three witnesses so examined, P.W.2 turned hostile. Before we proceed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and the other materials available on record, we will take up the evidence of P.W.3, since he is an independent witness, to find out whether the prosecution, through him, has succeeded in establishing the fact that the accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased. On going through the evidence of P.W.3, we find that he could not have witnessed the incident. On going through the evidence of P.W.3, we find that he could not have witnessed the incident. P.W.3, even in his chief-examination, has stated that he heard the shouts of P.W.1 and therefore, ran to the place and found Kuppusamy lying on the ground with injuries and that he was informed by P.W.1 that Kuppusamy was cut by the accused. The evidence of P.W.3 even in chief-examination, therefore indicates that he went to the place after the occurrence was over and therefore, he cannot be termed as a witness to the incident. As we stated earlier, P.W.2 has turned hostile and the prosecution had per force to rely only on the evidence of P.W.1 to establish that the accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased. 11. We will now take up the evidence of P.W.1 and other materials produced by the prosecution to find out whether the evidence of P.W.1 can be accepted to uphold the conviction of the accused. As we stated earlier, it is the case of the prosecution through P.W.1 that there was no love lost between him and the accused on account of a quarrel which took place about 18 years prior to the date of incident. According to the prosecution, on 8.10.1998, two trees were cut by P.W.1 and the accused, who objected to the said act of P.W.1, convened a panchayat, where it was decided that a surveyor should measure the lands. The surveyor, who measured the lands at 10.00 a.m. on the same day, stated that the trees belong to P.W.1 and therefore, the accused was aggrieved against P.W.1 and threatened him with his life. It is the further case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, that while he and P.Ws.2 and 3 were returning from their fields along with the deceased, the accused, who was hiding himself near a bush, came out of it and then inflicted cut injuries on Kuppusamy and that after the incident, a van was brought by P.W.2 and in it, Kuppusamy was placed and taken to Government Hospital, Palladam, where he was produced before the doctor, P.W.8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused strenuously contends that P.W.1 could not have been present at the scene of occurrence, since a perusal of Ex.P-9, the accident register copy, indicates that the injured Kuppusamy was produced before P.W.8 by Rathinasamy, the brother of the injured Kuppusamy. We have perused Ex.P-9, the accident register copy. It is found mentioned therein that the injured Kuppusamy was produced before P.W.8 by Rathinasamy, the brother of Kuppusamy. Though it is possible that P.W.1 also could have accompanied Rathinasamy and the doctor mentioned only the name of Rathinasamy in the accident register copy, Ex.P-9, we are still unable to accept the prosecution version, in view of the fact that in the accident register copy, Ex.P-9, it is found noted that the injured Kuppusamy was attacked by an unknown person. If P.W.1 was really present and witnessed the incident, then there is no reason for Rathinasamy to inform the doctor that his brother Kuppusamy was attacked by an unknown person, since P.W.1 would have informed him that his brother Kuppusamy was cut by the accused. So, even if we assume that Rathinasamy came to the scene of occurrence after the incident, he must have certainly been informed by P.W.1 that his brother Kuppusamy was cut by the accused and Rathinasamy, in turn, would have certainly informed the doctor, P.W.8, that his brother Kuppusamy was cut by a known person. A perusal of Ex.P-9 further indicates that "un" in the word "unknown" is struck off and it shows the conscious effort on the part of the prosecution to make it appear that an information was given to the doctor that the deceased was cut by a known person. If the doctor had committed a mistake while preparing Ex.P-9 and hence, struk off "un" in the word "unknown", then he would have certainly initialled it. There is no initial found in the same. The doctor did not also say that she struck off "un" in the word "unknown". The prosecution also has no explanation to give as to who struck off "un" in the word "unknown". In this background, we have to consider the non-examination of Rathinasamy, who produced Kuppusamy before the doctor. There is no initial found in the same. The doctor did not also say that she struck off "un" in the word "unknown". The prosecution also has no explanation to give as to who struck off "un" in the word "unknown". In this background, we have to consider the non-examination of Rathinasamy, who produced Kuppusamy before the doctor. Rathinasay was not examined in court and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on instructions from the officer, who is present in court, and after perusal of the records, submits that Rathinasamy was not examined by the investigating officer at any point of time during investigation. The non-examination of Rathinasamy, therefore, assumes importance and in our view, is fatal, since the earliest statement given to the doctor is to the effect that the injured Kuppusamy was cut by an unknown person and later, "un" in the word "unknown" was struck off, for which there is no explanation from the side of the prosecution. 12. In the above background, we have take into consideration the conduct of the prosecution in not marking the intimation sent by P.W.8 to the police authorities. P.W.8, the doctor, has, in her evidence, categorically stated that after she treated Kuppusamy and referred him to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, she sent an intimation to the police. The prosecution did not mark the said intimation nor did it have any explanation for not marking it before the trial court. If the said intimation had been produced and marked before the trial court, then it would have shown as to who brought the injured Kuppusamy to the hospital and the information furnished to him. The non-marking of the said intimation creates a suspicion in the mind of the court, about the veracity of the prosecution version. 13. At this stage, we cannot also lose sight of the fact that though the prosecution has claimed that the injured was removed in a van, it did not choose to examine the van driver. But, however, the owner of the van was examined. P.W.4, the owner of the van, has, in his evidence, stated that on the date of incident, the van was taken from Palladam and it was driven by his driver. But, however, the owner of the van was examined. P.W.4, the owner of the van, has, in his evidence, stated that on the date of incident, the van was taken from Palladam and it was driven by his driver. The prosecution could have done better by examining the driver to establish as to the persons, who accompanied the injured Kuppusamy, in view of the following contradictory evidence noticed by us. P.W.1 has, in his evidence, stated that after the attack on his son Kuppusamy, a van was brought by P.W.2 and that his son was taken by him and that he was accompanied by P.W.2, P.W.3 and his son-in-law Subramanian. He did not mention that Rathinasamy accompanied them. P.W.3 has stated that after the van was brought, the injured Kuppusamy was placed in it and was taken to the hospital by Subramanian and one Chandrasekaran. He also did not mention the presence of Rathinasamy and that Rathinasamy accompanied the injured Kuppusamy to the hospital. He has mentioned only two names, i.e. Subramanian and Chandrasekaran. A perusal of Ex.P-10, a copy of the accident register, issued by the doctor, P.W.9, shows that the injured Kuppusamy was produced before the doctor at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, at 9.35 p.m. by one Chandrasekaran, whose name is mentioned by P.W.3 in his evidence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, even if it is to be accepted, would only go to the extent of showing that the injured Kuppusamy was removed from the scene of occurrence in a van and that he was accompanied by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, Subramanian and Chandrasekaran and nowhere, Rathinasamy figures as a person who accompanied the injured. But, in Ex.P-9 issued by the doctor, P.W.8, it is found mentioned that the injured Kuppusamy was produced before her by his brother Rathinasamy. 14. The case of the prosecution, which we have extracted above, is that at the time of incident, P.Ws.1 to 3 were present and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 further indicates that Subramanian and Chandrasekaran also accompanied the injured to the hospital in the van, which means that apart from the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3, there were two other persons, namely Subramanian and Chandrasekaran. It is the case of the prosecution that the injured was removed to Government Hospital, Palladam, and thereafter to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. It is the case of the prosecution that the injured was removed to Government Hospital, Palladam, and thereafter to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. We are unable to understand as to why no one thought it fit to go and give a complaint at the police station since any one of them could have gone to Palladam Police Station to lay a complaint and it is not necessary for all the five persons to accompany the injured to Coimbatore for his admission in the hospital. The complaint in the case came to be given at Avinashipalayam Police Station only at 6.00 a.m. on 10.10.1998. We are also unable to understand as to why after the the death of Kuppusamy at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, P.W.1 travelled all the way from Coimbatore to Avinashi to lay a complaint, when there were several police stations in the corporation limits of Coimbatore and P.W.1 could have given the complaint at any one of the police stations at Coimbatore. P.W.1 had no explanation to offer as to why no witness thought it necessary to give a complaint after the incident and also had no explanation as to why he did not think it necessary to give a complaint at any one of the police stations at Coimbatore. Therefore, the earliest statement to the doctor, P.W.8, that the injured Kuppusamy was cut by an unknown person, though "un" in the word "unknown" is struck off, for which there is no explanation and which creates a suspicion in the mind of the court, and the failure of the prosecution in marking the intimation sent by the doctor, P.W.8, to the police authorities, in the background of the other suspicious features, which we have noted above, create a doubt in the mind of the court that all is not well with the prosecution and it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.W.1 to uphold the conviction of the accused. We, therefore, feel that the appellant/accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and the same is given to him. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant/accused is acquitted. It is reported that the appellant/accused is in jail. If so, he is directed to be released forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.