JUDGMENT (Per J.A.K. Sampath Kumar, J.) This revision is filed by P.W. 1 in S.C No. 219 of 2001 against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram Division, Villuparam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : On 18-10-1998 at about 8.30 p.m. in between Akkarapalayam and Kacchirapalayam Crescent Cinema Theatre near Komugi river, the accused waylaid and surrounded the deceased Sekar, took him to the forest shed and thereafter, A-1, A-3 to A-7 caught hold of the accused and prevented him from escaping and thereafter, the second accused stabbed the deceased on the left side of the neck, resulting in his death and thereafter the accused took the body of the deceased and threw in the river, thereby erasing all the evidence of murder, resulting in filing the charge-sheet against A-1 to A-7 under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 201 r/w 149 I.P.C. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and marked 15 exhibits and 6 material objects to prove the guilt of the accused. 3. The case of the accused is one of total denial. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 alleged to be eyewitnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. It is to be noted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 18-10-1998 at about 8.30 p.m. near the shelter of one Subramanian. It is also a fact that P.W. 1 along with relatives, on information, went to Komugi river and retrieved the deadbody of the deceased Sekar, who is the husband of PW. 1. Even according to the prosecution, they saw certain injuries on the body of the deceased and after following all the rituals, buried the dead body. Even according to the prosecution, the burial incident took place on 20-10-1998. In fact, P.W. 3 saw the deadbody of the deceased on 20-10-1998 at about 11.00 a.m. in Komugi river and informed the same to P.W. 2 resulting in retrieval of the body from the said place, followed by burial of the deadbody. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint about the incident and the same was registered as Ex. P-1, followed by laying of the charge-sheet. The said complaint was given on 21-10-1998. Ex. P-1 is the complaint and Ex. P-11 is the First Information Report. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint about the incident and the same was registered as Ex. P-1, followed by laying of the charge-sheet. The said complaint was given on 21-10-1998. Ex. P-1 is the complaint and Ex. P-11 is the First Information Report. Even according to the prosecution case, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 alleged to be the eyewitnesses have informed P.W. 1 about their seeing the incident on 18-10-1998 near Subramanian's shelter, which resulted in examination of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 by the police and thereafter, the arrest of the accused. 4. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 to prove the guilt of the accused. Even according to P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 they have seen the occurrence on 18-10-1998 at about 8.30 p.m. near Subramanian's shelter and they have not informed the same to anyone before leaving to Pondicherry. In fact, as per their statements, they returned back to Madras only on 29-10-1998 and informed the incident to the police only on 30-10-1998. It is borne out by record that P.W. 6 is not a worthy person as he is facing prosecution in several criminal cases. It is also borne out by record that P.W. 7 is a relative of the deceased. In such circumstances, no reason is adduced by P.W. 7 as to why he did not inform the incident to the relatives of the deceased before leaving to Pondicherry. It is also borne out by record that P.W. 1 and her relatives having seen several injuries on the body of the deceased, without informing to the police, followed all the rituals and buried the body. Only thereafter, a complaint was lodged regarding this incident on 21-10-1998. It is also borne out by record that there were two complaints with reference to the incident. The first complaint has been concealed and the law was set in motion only on the basis of the second complaint, which is marked as Ex. P-1. The deficiency and discrepancy of the prosecution case has been discussed in detail by the lower Court with regard to the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 and it has been found that there is suspicion in the prosecution case in roping the accused with the occurrence and ultimately acquitted of the accused. P-1. The deficiency and discrepancy of the prosecution case has been discussed in detail by the lower Court with regard to the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 and it has been found that there is suspicion in the prosecution case in roping the accused with the occurrence and ultimately acquitted of the accused. I do not find any error or discrepancy in the finding of the lower Court. The prosecution has not come forward with any reason as to why P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 have not informed the police or the relatives of the deceased as to the incident soon after seeing it, before leaving to Pondicherry. Further, there is a delay in lodging of the case about the incident. The occurrence took place on 18-10-1998 in the night. The present complaint was filed only in the morning of 21-10-1998. The delay also was not explained properly. 5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner conceded that he could not give any valid reasons for the discrepancy and deficiency of the prosecution case. In this context, the counsel for respondents 2 to 8 relied on the decision reported in Veerasamy @ Sulaiman @ Theeviravadhi v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police, D-9, Seerani Arangam Police Station, Cheenai, 2005 (1) MWN (Cri.) 31 (D.B.). and State of Tamil Nadu v. Velusamy, 1981 LW (Cri.) 63 to show that the delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The law laid down in the said ruling is fairly applicable to the facts on hand and I endorse the submission of the counsel for respondents 2 to 8 and hold that the delay in filing the First Information Report is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 6. From the facts stated above, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and that the judgment of the lower court acquitting the accused basing on the discrepancy and deficiency of the prosecution case is in order and that there is no error committed by the lower court in acquitting the accused and accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Consequently connected Crl. M.P. is also dismissed.