Judgment :- (Appeal preferred against the judgment dated 16.2.2004 in S.C.No.119 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.) M. Jeyapaul, J. The accused, who suffered a judgment of conviction in S.C.No.119 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, moves the present appeal. 2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence. 3. The charge as against the appellant/accused is that, on 2.12.2000 at 2.00 A.M. at Door No.46, 2nd Street, Kamarajapuram, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, the accused Kasi @ Kasirajan attacked Selvaraj with a billhook when he was sleeping, with an intention to cause his death and thereby committed murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On the side of the prosecution as many as 16 witnesses were examined besides marking 38 documents and 37 material objects. On the side of the defence Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked, but no oral evidence was let in on their side. 5. The brief text of the prosecution case, as found from the testimony of the witnesses examined on their side, is as follows:- Karuppusamy, PW.2, is the father and Vijaya, PW.4 is the wife of the deceased Selvaraj. About 7 years prior to the occurrence, Selvaraj married Vijaya, PW.4. The accused who has a grocery shop in front of the house of PW.4 developed illicit intimacy with her. As it came to light that Selvaraj took poisonous seeds and attempted to commit suicide on account of the said affair, PW.4 also took cowdung powder and attempted to commit suicide. Therefore, Karuppusamy, PW.2 arranged a separate house for his son Selvaraj and PW.4. Even after the aforesaid incident, Kasirajan wrote a letter, Ex.P.1 to PW.4. PW.4 has deposed before the Court that at about 2.30 P.M. on 27.11.2000, when she and her husband returned from Collector's Office to their house, they found a letter, Ex.P.1 at the door step. PW.2 informed the brother of the accused and asked him to admonish the accused not to play with the life of his son. Senthil, PW.3 went to the shop at 7.00 P.M. on 1.12.2000 for purchasing some commodities. PW.2 informed the brother of the accused and asked him to admonish the accused not to play with the life of his son. Senthil, PW.3 went to the shop at 7.00 P.M. on 1.12.2000 for purchasing some commodities. Velusamy, PW.6, who is the landlord of the shop run by the accused, was also present at that time. Selvaraj came to his shop and gave him a stern warning not to interfere with his matrimonial life. He has also directed Murugan, brother of the accused, to advise him to behave properly. 6. At about 2.00 A.M. in the early morning on 2.12.2000, Sarasu, PW.1, was proceeding to take water from a tap in the village. While she was crossing the house of Selvaraj and she heard a wailing noise in the house of Selvaraj and she witnessed the accused emerging from the house of Selvaraj. She, having been gripped with fear, put the pot at the public tap and rushed to the house of PW.2 and informed him of the occurrence. When PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of Selvaraj, they found Selvaraj in a pool of blood and his neck was slit open. Karuppusamy, PW.2 has deposed that PW.1 informed him that she saw the accused coming out of the house of Selvaraj. Palanivelu, PW.7 who came at that time, after watching second show in a theatre, met Selvaraj at 2.30 A.M. on 2.12.2000. Selvaraj informed him to conciliate the matrimonial dispute between his wife and himself. Palanivelu, PW.7 has informed him that he would come back after taking a tea. He saw the accused coming in the opposite direction at 2.30 A.M. PW.7 went to the house of Selvaraj and found Selvaraj in a pool of blood. 7. PW.7 went along with PW.2 at 5.30 A.M. on 2.12.2000 and gave a statement Ex.P.6 to the Sub Inspector of Police, PW.12. He registered a case in Crime No.355 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He prepared a printed FIR Ex.P.24 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore and copies thereof to the higher officials concerned. 8. The Inspector of Police, PW.14, having received a copy of the FIR in the early morning on 2.12.2000 went to the scene of occurrence at 7.00 A.M. and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.3 in the presence of Kamal Selvam, PW.5. 8. The Inspector of Police, PW.14, having received a copy of the FIR in the early morning on 2.12.2000 went to the scene of occurrence at 7.00 A.M. and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.3 in the presence of Kamal Selvam, PW.5. He also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.26 reflecting the scene of occurrence. He conducted the inquest on the dead body of Selvaraj and prepared inquest report, Ex.P.27. Thereafter he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and obtained the statement of Vijaya, PW.4. 9. Having sent advance intimation, Ex.P.28, to the learned Judicial Magistrate, PW.14, made a search in the house of the accused in the presence of PW.5. He prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P.29 as regards the observation he made in the house of the accused. The blood stained cement peel, MO-21, Sample cement peel MO-22, blood stained plastic Mug, MO-18, blood stained plastic Jar, MO-19, blood stained lungi, MO-20, blood stained stainless lock, MO-27, blood stained key, MO-28, blood stained cement peel, MO-29 and sample cement peel, MO-30 were recovered under the search list Ex.P.30. In the house of the deceased Selvaraj, the blood stained Mat, MO-1, blood stained vessel MO-2, blood stained full hand shirt, MO-3, blood stained broom stick, MO-17, blood stained piece of a gunny bag, MO-9, blood stained two bricks, MO-6 series, blood stained stone, MO-7, blood stained earth, MO-10, sample earth, MO-11, blood stained pair of chappels, MO-12 series, blood stained rose colour saree, MO-4, blood stained cement colour saree, MO-5, xerox copy of the letter dated 24.11.2000, MO-14, xerox copy of the letter dated 28.11.2000, MO-15, polythene cover, MO-13, blood stained plastic Mug, MO-18, blood stained green colour pump stove, MO-8, and cimini light, MO-16 were recovered under relevant seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 in the presence of PW.8. He examined the witnesses who were present over there and recorded their statements. 10. On the basis of the requisition given by PW.14, Dr.Edwin Joe, PW.10, commenced post mortem examination on the dead body of Selvaraj at 3.30 P.M. on 2.12.2000 and found the following injuries and other features:- "1. A curved cut wound 9 x 2 cm seen over the left upper neck. The wound starts 1.5 cm in front of the lower end of left ear and runs obliquely towards the midline. 2. An oblique cut wound 25 x 4 cm on the right side of neck. A curved cut wound 9 x 2 cm seen over the left upper neck. The wound starts 1.5 cm in front of the lower end of left ear and runs obliquely towards the midline. 2. An oblique cut wound 25 x 4 cm on the right side of neck. The wound starts 4 cm below the little back of lower end of right ear and crosses the midline and ends as muscle deep and skin deep tailing 5 cm above and lateral to the inner end of left clavicle. 3. A horizontal cut wound of 7 cm length seen 5 cm below symphysis menti. The lateral end is merged with inner margins of injuries No.1 and 2 and has caused a wide gaping injury in the neck exposing cut neck structures on either sides. Upper end of thyroid cartilage found cut horizontally. Right internal carotid found cut at C2 level. Hyoid bone intact and found in the upper end. The wound has ended partially cutting the C3 vetebrae. The depth of the wound about 8-9 cms. The wound tract filled with Blood clots. 4. A muscle deep incised wound 8 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm seen in the lateral aspect of left side of neck crossing the midline and ending 6 cm above inner aspect of right clavicle with an interruption 1 cm in the middle. The wound starts 9 cm below lower end of left ear. 5. A vertical stab wound 1.75 cm x 0.5 cm entering into the oral cavity seen on the right cheek with a skin deep tailing of 2 cm seen in the upper end. The lower end is blunt. The wound passes obliquely upwards, inwards and backwards to a depth of 3.5 cm in the muscle plane and has ended hitting the right upper jaw bone in the posterior alveolar margin. 6. An oblique cut wound on the lower lateral aspect of the right ear 2,5 cm x entire ear thickness. Underlying cartilage found cut. 7. An oblique stab wound in 0.5 cm seen just above the middle of left side upper lip. The wound has passed to a depth of 2 cm and has entered into the oral cavity 0.5 x 0.2 cm. Lower end of the wound is blunt. 8. Underlying cartilage found cut. 7. An oblique stab wound in 0.5 cm seen just above the middle of left side upper lip. The wound has passed to a depth of 2 cm and has entered into the oral cavity 0.5 x 0.2 cm. Lower end of the wound is blunt. 8. An incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm seen in the inner aspect of the ala of the left side of the nose. 9. A vertically oblique skin deep cut wound 3 cm, 2.5 cm, 2 cm and 1.5 cm seen on the lower part of left cheek. 10. Circular contusion 2.5 cm in diameter seen in the left cheek with small marginal incised like skin deep wounds seen in 5 numbers in the upper inner border each 0.25 x 0.2 cms size. 11. An oblique cut wound 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm bone deep seen behind the middle of left ear. The upper lateral margin of the left ear was also found cut along the same line to a length of 2.5 cm and the flap found hanging at the lower end. 12. An oblique stab wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm seen on the front of the right lower chest. The upper lateral end is 3 cm below right nipple. Another oblique stab wound 3 x 1 cm seen 1.5 cm below previous wound. Another stab wound 3 x 1 cm seen 0.5 cm below previous wound. All 3 wounds are merged and has exited out in the lateral aspect of chest passing through the subcutaneous and muscle plane 2.5 x 1.5 cm The upper and inner end of the exist wound is 3 cm lateral and a little below right nipple in the anterior axillary line. 13. A Transversely oblique stab wound 3.5 x 0.5 cm seen on the right lower back. The inner lower end is 5 cm lateral to the midline and the upper lateral blunt end is 5 cm back of left anterior superior iliac spine. The wound has passed in the muscle plane to a depth of 9 cm cutting the right iliac vessels. 14. An oblique skin deep incised wound 5 x 0.25 cm on the mid upper back. 15. Abrasions seen in the following regions: - 2.5 x 1.5 cm over right upper scapular region. - 4.5 x 2.5 cm over back of left shoulder. 14. An oblique skin deep incised wound 5 x 0.25 cm on the mid upper back. 15. Abrasions seen in the following regions: - 2.5 x 1.5 cm over right upper scapular region. - 4.5 x 2.5 cm over back of left shoulder. - 5 x 1.5 cm back of right shoulder. - 2 x 2 cm over the upper lateral right cheek 2 cm below lateral end of right eye. - 3 x 2 cm over back of right elbow. - 3 x 2 cm over back of upper end of right forearm. - 2.5 x 2 cm over back of upper end of left forearm." PW.10 opined in the postmortem certificate Ex.P.11 issued by him that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab and cut injuries sustained by him. 11. On 4.12.2000 at 6.30 A.M. PW.14 arrested the accused when the latter was proceeding on the road near Ganapathy bus stand in the presence of Palanisamy, PW.9. On the basis of the admissible portion, Ex.P.7, in the confession statement of the accused, the blood stained knife, MO-26, blood stained sandal colour slack shirt, MO-24, blood stained white cross stripped lungi, MO-25 and blood stained yellow colour brown stripped bag, MO-23 were recovered under recovery mahazar Ex.P.8. As the accused was found with certain injuries he was sent with a medical memo for treatment. Dr.M.Nataraj, PW.13, examined the accused who was brought for treatment at 11.55 A.M. on 4.12.2000. The accused informed the Dr. that he sustained injuries in the scuffle between Selvaraj and himself at 1.30 A.M. on 2.12.2000. He found the following injuries:- "1. A Sutured wound over palmar surface of web space between thumb and index finger left 3 cm length. 2. White sodden laceration over left thigh 3 x 0.5 cm. 3. Laceration 2 cm x 0.5 cm length left index finger. 4. Regular Marginal laceration Left little finger 3 cm x 0.5 cm infected wound. 5. Raw area over Left little finger 3 x 2 cm. 6. Irregular infected marginal wound 3 x 1 cm. Left index finger dorsal aspect. 7. Sutured wound (irregular infected sutured Margins gangrenous) Semi circular 4 cm in length Right little finger nail absent. 8. 3 x 0.5 cm laceration infected wound on the palmar aspect left ring finger. 9. 5. Raw area over Left little finger 3 x 2 cm. 6. Irregular infected marginal wound 3 x 1 cm. Left index finger dorsal aspect. 7. Sutured wound (irregular infected sutured Margins gangrenous) Semi circular 4 cm in length Right little finger nail absent. 8. 3 x 0.5 cm laceration infected wound on the palmar aspect left ring finger. 9. Gangrenous edged infected 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound left middle finger on the palmar aspect. 10. Infected (white edged) laceration area. Right thumb 3 x 0.5 cm. 11. Abrasion Right knee outer aspect 4 x 3 cm Blackish red scabbed." PW.13, in the accident register Ex.P.25, has opined that except injuries 1 and 7, all other injuries are simple in nature. 12. The Constable Nagaraj, who was present at the time of postmortem, recovered blood stained black stripped full hand shirt, MO-31, blood stained green colour lungi, MO-32, blood stained sleeveless banian, MO-33, blood stained green colour jatti, MO-34, red colour cotton waist card, MO-35 and blood stained talisman, MO-36 from the dead body after the postmortem examination was over and entrusted the same to PW.14 for further investigation in this matter. PW.14 engaged a photographer Ulaganathan to take photographs of the dead body at the scene of occurrence. The photographs were marked as MO.37 series. 13. On 17.7.2001, he examined Vijaya, PW.4 and obtained her sample signature and sent the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate. He submitted a requisition Ex.P.13 to the learned Judicial Magistrate to obtain the sample signature of the accused for the purpose of sending the same for expert's opinion. On the basis of the requisition Ex.P.14 given by PW.14, the hand writing expert PW.16, has given expert's opinion, Exs.P.16 and 17. The chemical examiner sent chemical report Ex.P.20 and serology report Exs.P.22 and P.23 to the learned Judicial Magistrate. PW.15 obtained permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate for further investigation in this matter after the chargesheet was laid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He obtained the sample signature from PW.4 and thereafter sent it for examination. 14. The incriminating circumstances found in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were put forth in the form of questionnaire under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. The accused has denied each and every incriminating portion spoken to by the witnesses. He obtained the sample signature from PW.4 and thereafter sent it for examination. 14. The incriminating circumstances found in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were put forth in the form of questionnaire under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. The accused has denied each and every incriminating portion spoken to by the witnesses. But he has admitted the fact that the doctor examined him and had noted down the wounds in the accident register. It is his further submission that he had not committed any offence as spoken to by the witnesses. 15. On the side of the defence, the FIRs relating to two cases of suicide attempt filed against the deceased as well as PW.4 and the chargesheets thereof were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4. The correspondence of the finger print expert was marked as Ex.D.5 and the chargesheet laid in Crime No.365 of 1998 wherein the deceased was cited as one of the accused was marked as Ex.D.6. 16. The learned trial Judge having adverted to the various circumstances spoken to by the witnesses, in the background of the injuries sustained by the accused and the serology report, has come to a conclusion that it was only the accused who has committed the murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that there was no eye witness to the occurrence. The chain of circumstances have not been cogently spoken to by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution. The testimony of R.Palanivelu, PW.7 is found to be totally artificial inasmuch as he has spoken before the Court as though he was making arrangement for convening a Panchayat at the odd hour. He attacked the FIR on the ground that it has been concocted after the investigating official was left with no clue in the case of murder which took place in the mid of night. Referring to the communication sent by the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Coimbatore City, Ex.D.5, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finger print expert was summoned to the scene of occurrence as there was no clue as to the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. Referring to the communication sent by the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Coimbatore City, Ex.D.5, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finger print expert was summoned to the scene of occurrence as there was no clue as to the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. He would further submit that the very fact that the sniffer dog was summoned would show that the accused was not fixed at all, even when the investigation was commenced by the Investigating Officer. Though there is some material to show that there had been some motive between the accused and the deceased, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the accused. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the testimony of PW.1 is found to be quite natural. She, having witnessed the accused at the odd hour emerging from the house of the deceased, had gone to the residence of the parents of the deceased and informed them and brought them to the scene of occurrence. It is his further submission that the prosecution has established, in a case where circumstantial evidence alone is available, that there had been motive between the accused and the deceased just prior to the occurrence. He submits that PW.7, who set the law in motion, had witnessed the accused at the time of occurrence close by the house of the deceased. The serology report in the background of the recovery effected on the basis of the confession given by the accused would go to show that the blood stains found in the apparels of the deceased did tally with the group of blood found in the apparels of the accused. Therefore there is no warrant for interference with the well considered judgment pronounced by the trial Court, he would contend. 19. Karuppusamy, PW.2 is the father of the deceased. Of course, he has spoken to the illicit relationship developed by the accused with his daughter-in-law Vijaya, PW.4 and the strained relationship between the deceased and PW.4. He has also spoken to the attempts made by PW.4 and the deceased to commit suicide on account of the fact that PW.4 had chosen to develop illicit intimacy with the shop keeper, the accused herein. He has also spoken to the attempts made by PW.4 and the deceased to commit suicide on account of the fact that PW.4 had chosen to develop illicit intimacy with the shop keeper, the accused herein. Exs.D.1 to D.4 would establish that a case had been registered for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code not only as against the deceased but also as against his wife Vijaya, PW.4 for the offence of attempting to commit suicide. The FIR lodged by PW.4 which culminated in registering of a case under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, would go to show that there had been matrimonial discard between herself and the deceased as the deceased had chosen to allege infidelity against her. Though PW.4 has not disclosed in detail about the affair she had with the accused in the FIR she lodged with the police, it is found that she has deposed before the Court that she developed illicit intimacy with the accused. She has also referred to the letter written by the accused to her. The said letter has been marked as Ex.P.4 before this Court. PW.2 has also spoken to the motive part of the case. We find that the prosecution has come out with plausible material to show that there had been an illicit relationship between Vijaya, PW.4 and the accused. 20. PW.7, who set the law in motion, has come out with a version that he met and discussed with the deceased and also spotted the accused nearby the house of the deceased at 2.30 A.M. on 2.12.2000. When the occurrence had taken place at 2.00 A.M. on 2.12.2000, he could have neither met the deceased nor spotted the accused after half an hour close by the house of the deceased. Secondly it is found that he has come out with a totally artificial version as though the deceased asked him at the odd hour at 2.30 A.M. to make arrangement to amicably settle the matrimonial dispute between himself and his wife. PW.7 would state that he having assured the deceased that he would convene the panchayat went out to take a tea in a shop. The case of the prosecution is that in the meantime, the occurrence had taken place and PW.7 happened to see the accused thereafter. The conduct of PW.7 does not look natural. PW.7 would state that he having assured the deceased that he would convene the panchayat went out to take a tea in a shop. The case of the prosecution is that in the meantime, the occurrence had taken place and PW.7 happened to see the accused thereafter. The conduct of PW.7 does not look natural. Nobodyelse would have promised a person to convene a Panchayat at 2.30 A.M. mid of night. The further case of the prosecution is that the deceased was murdered when he was sleeping. If at all, PW.7 had spotted the deceased and discussed with him just few minutes prior to the occurrence, the deceased would not have gone to bed and he would have been awake. Therefore we are not inclined to accept the testimony of Palanivelu, PW.7 who allegedly set the law in motion. 21. Palanivelu, PW.7 would state that he went along with Karuppusamy, PW.2 to the police station to lodge the report. He deposes that it was he who gave the statement Ex.P.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, PW.12. But karuppusamy, PW.2 would state that it was he who gave the statement which was recorded by the Inspector of Police. The aforesaid evidence throws doubt on the authorship of Ex.P.1. The version of Sarasu, PW.1 is that the moment she heard a wailing noise emanating from the house of the deceased and noticed the emergence of the accused from the house of the deceased, she rushed to the residence of PW.2 and informed him. Unless a person ascertains as to what happened in a particular house, one would not have ventured to inform anything about such an occurrence. It is highly doubtful whether PW.2 witnessed the emergence of accused from the house of deceased. 22. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 2.00 A.M on 2.12.2000. It is the evidence of PW.7 that he proceeded to the police station at 3.00 A.M itself on the very same day for the purpose of lodging a report. PW.12, who registered the FIR, has deposed that at 5.30 A.M. he registered the case based on the statement given by PW.7. On a perusal of the printed FIR received by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it is found that the printed FIR has reached the Court only at 9.00 P.M. on 2.12.2000. PW.12, who registered the FIR, has deposed that at 5.30 A.M. he registered the case based on the statement given by PW.7. On a perusal of the printed FIR received by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it is found that the printed FIR has reached the Court only at 9.00 P.M. on 2.12.2000. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecuting agency as to why such an inordinate delay has occasioned in despatching the FIR in a case of murder. The unexplained inordinate delay in despatching the FIR will have to be seen in the background of the communication sent by the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau to his higher official which has been marked as Ex.D.5 in this case on the side of the defence. The letter reads as follows:- "As per orders, I visited the scene of crime concerned in the above case on 2.12.2000 at the house of Selva @ Selvaraj, No.46, 1st Street, Kamarajapuram, Ganapathy along with the Investigating Officer. It was reported that on 2.12.2000 at 02.30 PM some unknown person murdered Selva @ Selvaraj in the abovesaid place. On careful examination at the scene of crime place, no decipherable latent print was developed. This is for favour of information." 23. It is not as if when the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau, the author of Ex.D.5 visited the scene of occurrence, the Investigating Officer was not present. The letter would read that the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau, accompanied the Investigating Officer to the scene of occurrence. The shocking revelation of the said communication is that some unknown person murdered Selva @ Selvaraj at 2.30 A.M. on 2.12.2000. He having examined the scene of crime carefully, has come to a conclusion that no latent print could be collected from the scene of occurrence. The said communication deals a deathly blow to the case of the prosecution that the FIR lodged at 5.00 A.M. contained the name of the accused. 24. If the FIR registered at 5.30 A.M on 2.12.2000 has referred to the role of the accused herein, the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau would not have commenced his investigation on the premise that an unknown person committed a crime in the odd hour on 2.12.2000. 24. If the FIR registered at 5.30 A.M on 2.12.2000 has referred to the role of the accused herein, the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau would not have commenced his investigation on the premise that an unknown person committed a crime in the odd hour on 2.12.2000. The inordinate delay in despatching the FIR coupled with the information found in the communication sent by the Inspector of Police Finger Print Bureau to his higher official would disclose that the Investigating officials could not fix the identity of the accused even at the time when the Finger Print official visited the location searching for some latent print at the scene of crime. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that taking advantage of the previous enmity between the accused and the deceased on account of the alleged illicit intimacy the accused developed with Vijaya, PW.4, the Police had fixed the accused as the perpetrator of the crime of murder. Such a weighty submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be simply ignored. 26. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew the attention to the injuries found on the person of the accused and the explanation given by the accused to the Doctor who treated him. 27. It is not as if the accused had on his own volition went to the Doctor for treatment. After apprehension, the accused had been taken by a Constable to Dr.M.Nataraj, PW.13 with a medical memo for treatment for the injuries he had sustained. Further it is a trite law that neither the prosecution nor the defence would rely upon the statement alleged to have been given to a medical man, who admits/treats an injured person. 28. The accused has stated during the proceedings under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it was true that Dr. M.Nataraj, PW.13 treated him for the injuries he sustained and noted down the injuries in the accident register Ex.P.25. On a perusal of the questionnaire put to the accused relating to the role of Dr. M.Nataraj, PW.13, we find that the statement recorded in the copy of the accident register Ex.P.25 had not been specifically drawn to the attention of the accused. On a perusal of the questionnaire put to the accused relating to the role of Dr. M.Nataraj, PW.13, we find that the statement recorded in the copy of the accident register Ex.P.25 had not been specifically drawn to the attention of the accused. When a question was put to him whether Dr.M.Nataraj, PW.13 treated him and issued copy of the accident register Ex.P.25, the accused, having understood the face value of such a question, answered in the positive. Had the Sessions Court couched the questionnaire with more clarity, culling out the incriminating statement alleged to have been given by the accused to Dr.M.Nataraj, PW.13, the accused would have come out with some answer having understood the full load of the question. When the incriminating portion found in Ex.P.25 was not specifically brought to the notice of the accused, such a version cannot be relied upon by the Court to record conviction. Therefore the statement of the accused alleged to have been given to Dr.M.Nataraj, PW.13 at the time when he was brought with a medical memo cannot be safely relied upon. 29. The accused had been arrested two days after the occurrence. The recovery part of the case spoken to by the prosecution witnesses has been totally denied by the accused. Of course, the serology report Ex.P.22 would show that the group of blood found in the shirt and lungi worn by the accused did tally with the group of blood found in the personal apparels of the deceased recovered after the postmortem examination was over. When the very foundation of the prosecution story is shaky, we are not inclined to give much importance to the serology report. 30. The above facts and circumstances would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances in a case where there was no eye witness to the occurrence. The circumstances spoken to by PWs.1 and 7 are found not reliable and trustworthy. Though the previous enmity between the accused and the deceased was established by the prosecution, the other circumstances culminating in the murder have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt will have to be conferred on the accused. 31. The circumstances spoken to by PWs.1 and 7 are found not reliable and trustworthy. Though the previous enmity between the accused and the deceased was established by the prosecution, the other circumstances culminating in the murder have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt will have to be conferred on the accused. 31. In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.119 of 2003 stands set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be returned to him forthwith. The criminal appeal stands allowed accordingly.