Judgment :- (Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai, in S.C.No.500 of 2001, dated 05.02.2002.) S. Ashok Kumar, J. The appellant, the sole accused in Sessions Case No.500 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 05.02.2002, convicting him under Sections 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (a) It is a case of matricide. The deceased is none other than the mother of the accused. The deceased left her husband i.e. the father of the accused, two years prior to the occurrence and came to reside with P.W.1. P.W.1 had already two wives and both of them deserted him. Six days prior to the occurrence i.e. 04.06.2001, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and stayed with them. According to P.W.1, he picked-up a quarrel with the deceased on 04.06.2001 because he did not like the deceased to be with him and during the quarrel he took a wooden beater and attacked the deceased on her head voluntarily three times. The deceased suffered serious head injuries and she was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai, at 11.15 a.m. by P.W.4. On 06.06.2001 at 7.45 p.m., the injured died. (b) Thereafter, on 08.06.2001, at 6.30 a.m., P.W.1 gave a complaint in the police station before P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police of Vikkiramangalam Police Station, who registered case in Crime No.62 of 2001 under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-10 printed FIR and despatched the same to the Court and the copies to the higher authorities. (c) P.W.13 Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy of Ex.P-10 FIR at 7.30 a.m. on 08.06.2001, took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, made an observation and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses. He also drew Ex.P-3 rough sketch. Then he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Madurai and there he enquired some witnesses and recorded their statements. He also drew Ex.P-3 rough sketch. Then he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Madurai and there he enquired some witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, from 10.15 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-13 inquest report and on completion of inquest, he sent the body for postmortem. (d) P.W.11 Dr.Natarajan, attached to Madurai Medical College Hospital, on receipt of requisition from the Investigation Officer, conducted postmortem on 08.06.2001 and found the following injuries. "1.Sutured lacerated wound 1 cm x 05 cm x bone deep seen on the left frontal region – 4 cm above from left eye brow. 2.Sutured lacerated wound 1 cm x .5cm x bone deep seen on right parietal region 10 cm above the right ear. 3.Sutured lacerated wound 6 cm x 1cm x bone deep seen on right occipital region (10 cm away from right ear). Abrasions: Front of left knee 7 cm x 1 cm; Back of middle of right forearm 2 cm x 1 cm. On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: Contusion of scalp 7 cm x 4 cm on left front -parietal region and 10 cm x 8 cm on right parietal region and 12 cm x 10 cm on occipital region. Extra dural haemotoma about 30 grams seen on right occipital lobe and subdural haematoma about 30 grams seen on left frontal lobe. Laceration of brain 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the left frontal lobe with intracerebral haemorrhage noted. Cerebrospinal fluid increased and blood stained. Fracture of posterior cranial fossa of base of skull on both sides noted obliquely. Other findings: Peritoneal and pleural cavities – empty; Pericardium-15ml of straw colour fluid; Heart-right side - fluid blood, left side - empty; Lungs-cut section-congested; Hyoid bone-intact; Stomach-contains 100ml of brown colour fluid, nil specific smell. Mucosa-normal; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys-cut section-congested; Small intestine-contains 20 ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell. Mucosa Normal. Bladder-empty; Uterus-normal, cut section-empty; Brain-described in injury column." He also issued Ex.P-11 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries sustained by her. After postmortem, P.W.8 Police Constable recovered one sari, one bloodstained petticoat and one bloodstained blouse from the body of the deceased and handed over them to P.W.13 Inspector of Police. Bladder-empty; Uterus-normal, cut section-empty; Brain-described in injury column." He also issued Ex.P-11 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries sustained by her. After postmortem, P.W.8 Police Constable recovered one sari, one bloodstained petticoat and one bloodstained blouse from the body of the deceased and handed over them to P.W.13 Inspector of Police. (e) On 09.06.2001 P.W.13 Inspector of police examined P.W.2 Pandiammal, P.W.4 Karuthapandi and P.W.6 Chandramohan and recorded their statements. On 10.06.2001 at 6.30 a.m., he arrested the accused near Arasamaram Bus-stop in the presence of P.W.5 Village Administrative Officer and one Balu, Village Assistant and at that time, the accused voluntarily gave a confession, admissible portion of which is Ex.P-4 and in pursuance that, the accused took the police party to Manalpatti and took and produced M.O.1 Wooden beater from a bush, which was seized under Ex.P-5 mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and another. P.W.13 Inspector of Police sent the properties for judicial custody with a requisition to send them for chemical analysis. Accordingly, they were subjected to chemical analysis and Ex.P-8 is the chemical analysis report and Ex.P-9 is the serologist's report. On 20.06.2001, P.W.13 examined P.W.11 Doctor Natarajan and P.W.12 Dr.Jeyaraj and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, he filed final report before the court on 29.07.2001 against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. In the trial court, on behalf of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-15 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf the accused, no witness was examined and also no document was marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied them either as false or not known. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the sole accused has preferred this appeal. 4. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the sole accused has preferred this appeal. 4. Before this Court, Mr.Arichandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the alleged motive, as projected by the prosecution, is false and the earliest version as to how the deceased sustained injuries is that she fell in a well and only four days later in a belated complaint preferred by P.W.1, who is the second husband of the deceased, this appellant has been falsely implicated by P.W.1. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 6. According to P.W.1, motive for the occurrence is that the accused did not like the deceased living with him, because the accused was born to the deceased through her first husband, whereas the deceased was the third wife of P.W.1 whose two wives have already deserted him. But, according to P.W.3, who is none other than the elder brother of P.W.1, the accused stayed in the house of P.W.1 and the deceased and he wanted the deceased to come and compromise the dispute between him and his wife and the deceased was promising to help him, but on the 6th day, she refused to go and enraged over the same, the accused quarrelled with his mother (the deceased) and beat her with a wooden beater and caused injuries. According to P.W.1 the motive is that the accused did not like his mother living with him. But, according to P.W.3, the motive is different. If the motive as suggested by P.W.1 is true, then the accused would not have stayed in the house of P.W.1 for 6 days as claimed by P.W.3. Further, P.W.1 does not say that the accused stayed with them for 6 days. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 on the aspect of motive is contradicting with each others evidence. 7. Further, in this case, as to how the deceased Nachiyammal sustained injuries is highly suspicious. Further, P.W.1 does not say that the accused stayed with them for 6 days. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 on the aspect of motive is contradicting with each others evidence. 7. Further, in this case, as to how the deceased Nachiyammal sustained injuries is highly suspicious. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2001 at 11.15 a.m. she was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, by P.W.4 Karuthapandian and she was admitted in the hospital by P.W.12 Doctor. At that time, the medical officer, who admitted the injured, has recorded that the patient was conscious and oriented and at the time of admission the patient has stated that she accidentally fell into a well at 9.00 a.m. at her native place. Therefore, the earliest version in this case is that the deceased sustained injuries herself due to the accidental fall into a well in her native place. P.W.1, who claims to be an eye-witness, did not lodge any complaint immediately after the occurrence or till 06.06.2001 on which date the injured died. It is curious to note that P.W.1, the second husband of the deceased who lived with her for more than two years, did not take any attempt to take her to hospital or atleast to pay a visit to the hospital when she was taking treatment. But, only on 08.06.2001 at about 6.30 a.m. he has lodged a complaint with P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police who registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2001 for an alleged offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The failure on the part of P.W.1 either to take the injured to the hospital or to visit her till her death or to lodge a complaint either immediately after the occurrence or immediately after the death of the deceased on 06.06.2001, i.e. two days after the occurrence, raises serious suspicion against the conduct of P.W.1. Probably, the accused, who is the son of the deceased, might have been a thorn in the flesh of P.W.1 and that is why he might have implicated the accused at a belated stage. 8. As far as the injuries sustained by the deceased are concerned, P.W.12 has also opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible by falling into a well. 8. As far as the injuries sustained by the deceased are concerned, P.W.12 has also opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible by falling into a well. The deceased herself stated to P.W.12 at the time when she was admitted in the hospital that she sustained injuries due to a fall into a well. The complaint made four days after the occurrence by an interested witness like P.W.1 implicating the accused cannot be given credence to. 9. Further there is a delay of four days in giving the complaint to the police about the occurrence. The delay in lodging the complaint has been held to be fatal to the prosecution case in so many decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court. In Meharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1390, the value of FIR and the effect of delay in lodging the FIR has been discussed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court as follows: - "FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the incept report. Even though the inquest report, prepared; under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR." The observations of the Supreme Court made in the above judgment squarely apply to the facts of this case also. The delay of four days in lodging the complaint is fatal to the prosecution case and the injuries sustained by the deceased are probable and possible by falling into a well and this has been exaggerated for the purpose of implicating the accused, who is the son of the deceased. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant/accused is entitled to be acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment is liable to be set aside. 11. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant/accused is entitled to be acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by judgment of the trial court, dated 05.02.2002, made in S.C.No.500 of 21001 and acquit the appellant from the charges levelled against him. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.