Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No:349 of 1999, dated 21.12.1999.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants-accused A.1 and A.2 under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentence imposed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Rangasamy. The deceased is also uncle of P.W.2 and Cousin of P.W.3. The occurrence took place on 18.4.1998 at 11.00 p.m., About four days prior to the occurrence, A.1's sister's grand daughter by name Baby, a minor girl is said to have been kidnapped by one Chockalingam. The family members of the said minor girl Baby suspected that the deceased engineered the elopement or abduction. On 18.4.1998 there was some Pooja in Devampadivalasu Makaliamman temple in which P.W.1, the deceased, P.W.2 and one Sandhu, Venkatachalapathy participated and they were returning after the Pooja was over. The deceased was walking 40 feet in front of P.W.1 and others. When they were nearing Muthalamman Temple, A.1 armed with Vasi (a weapon used to separate the coconut from the husk) and A.2 with an iron pipe attacked the deceased on his stomach, private parts and right leg. At the time of attack, they were saying that he was the reason for elopement of Baby. P.W.1, 2 and others went to catch the accused, but they escaped. Immediately, P.W.1 took the TVS 50 Moped and brought a taxi in which the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Pollachi. On 19.4.1998 at 4.03 a.m., P.W.5, Dr.Kaja Mohideen examined the deceased and found the following injuries:- "1. A blunt injury over left side of the chest over axilla region- contusion size 5 cm x 5 cm; 2. A blunt injury over right side of the abdomen contusion size 10 cm x 8 cm; 3. A blunt injury with small abrasion over lateral aspect of right knee joint. size 4 cm x 2 cm 4. Obstructed inguinal hernia right side" (b) Thereafter he gave intimation Ex.P.4 to Police Station. On the advice of P.W.5, the injured Rangasamy was taken to Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore in a taxi. After admitting him in the Hospital, P.W.1 went to Pollachi Taluk Police Station and gave a complaint before P.W.9, Head Constable, who recorded the complaint of P.W.1. Obstructed inguinal hernia right side" (b) Thereafter he gave intimation Ex.P.4 to Police Station. On the advice of P.W.5, the injured Rangasamy was taken to Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore in a taxi. After admitting him in the Hospital, P.W.1 went to Pollachi Taluk Police Station and gave a complaint before P.W.9, Head Constable, who recorded the complaint of P.W.1. The said complaint is Ex.P.1. Based on Ex.P.1, complaint, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime NO.66 of 1998 under Sections 324 and 506 (ii) IPC against the accused. Ex.P.10 is the printed FIR. P.W.10, Sub Inspector of Police who received copy of the FIR went to the place of occurrence and at 9.00 a.m., in the presence of PW.4 and one Natarajan, he prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.11 rough sketch. He examined P.Ws.1 , 2 and 3, Vankatachalapathy, Sandhu and P.W.4 and recorded their statements. On 19.4.1998 at 9.55 a.m., P.W.6 admitted the injured Rangasamy at the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore and gave intimation to the Police. (c) On 23.4.198 P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused near Nalligoundenpalayam Mariamman Temple. The accused volunteered to give statement of confession and produced M.Os 1 and 2. In pursuance of the said confession statement the weapons were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.9 signed by P.W.8 and one Damodharan. On 30.4.1998, at 7.30 a.m., he received the intimation that the injured Rangasamy who was treated at the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore died and therefore, P.W.11, Inspector of Police altered the Section of the FIR as one under Secton 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sent Ex.P.12, express report to the Court. Between 10.00 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., on 30.4.1998 in the presence of Panchayatdars, P.W.11 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and examined witnesses. The inquest report is Ex.P.13. After inquest, he sent the body along with Ex.P.7 requisition through P.W.9 Constable Muthiah for autopsy. (d) P.W.7 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.4.1998 at 2.15 pm., and found the following injuries:- External: 1. Sutured surgical abdominal vertical midline incisional wound partially healed measuring 22 x 1.5 cm abdominal cavity deep with 16 sutures. 2. Surgical drainage wound 3 x 2 cm abdominal cavity deep seen on either flanks. 3. Surgical infected drainage wound measuring 2 x 1 cm present in the left subcostal region. 4. Sutured surgical abdominal vertical midline incisional wound partially healed measuring 22 x 1.5 cm abdominal cavity deep with 16 sutures. 2. Surgical drainage wound 3 x 2 cm abdominal cavity deep seen on either flanks. 3. Surgical infected drainage wound measuring 2 x 1 cm present in the left subcostal region. 4. Abrasion with black scab measuring 1 cm diameter present in the outer surface of middle third of right arm. 5. Bedsore measuring 12 x 10 cm present in both buttocks. Internal: 1. Haematoma of varigated appearance present in the lower anterior abdominal wall. 2. Small bowel found adherent to one another. 3. Peritoneal cavity contains about 200 ml of foul smelling faecopurulent fluid. 4. Small bowel found sutured measuring 4 cms, one foot proximal to the ileocaecal junction. On dissection of the sutured wound in the small bowel a perforation measuring 3 x 1 cm is present. The sutured wound is infected. 5. Multiple areas of contusion seen in the terminal portion of the small bowel." (e) He also gave the opinion that the accused would appear to have died as a result of septic complication of blunt injury of the abdomen (perforative faecal peritonitis). (f) P.W.11 once again examined P.Ws 1 and others who were already examined by P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police and recorded their statements. He also examined P.W.6, 7 and obtained the postmortem certificate. After completion of investigation on 27.4.1998 he filed a final report against the accused under Section 302 IPC. (g) Before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined and EXs.P.1 to P.13 were and M.Os 1 and 2 were marked. On behalf of the accused D.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D.1 and D.6 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against them, they denied the same as false. Along with the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have also produced five documents which include 2 photographs with negatives. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against them, they denied the same as false. Along with the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have also produced five documents which include 2 photographs with negatives. (h) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused under Section 302 IPC is not proved, but offence committed under Section 304 (ii) IPC proved and convicted them and sentenced them to undergo R.I for five years. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused. 3. Mr.V.K.Muthusamy, learned senior counsel for Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would contend that there are three different versions with regard to the occurrence viz., (i) before the Medical Officer at Government Hospital at Pollachi; (ii) another before the Medical officer at Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore; and (iii) another before the Police and all the three versions are contrary to each other. Learned Senior Counsel further highlighted that the FIR Ex.P.10 could not have come into existence at 6.15 a.m., because P.W.1 could not have lodged the complaint at 6.15 a.m., as alleged in the FIR and in Ex.P.1 complaint. 4. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellants/accused, the occurrence has taken place in a different manner in which the prosecution witnesses PWs. 1, 2 and their party were aggressors who were said to have picked up a quarrel in the house of Mylsamy, father of the minor abducted girl and when a complaint was lodged against the prosecution parties they were able to influence the Police with political influence and therefore no counter case was registered in spite of complaint. 5. Per contra, Mr.N.Kumanan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-State would contend that PWS 1 2, and 3 are natural eye witnesses and the occurrence has taken place immediately after the temple Bajana was over when the deceased and prosecution witnesses were returning from the temple and there is no delay in lodging the complaint and thus the prosecution case has been properly proved. 6. I gave my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of both side. 6. I gave my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of both side. The earliest version about the occurrence is at 4.03 a.m., before P.W.5, Dr.Kaja Mohideen who issued Ex.P.3 Accident Register. In Ex.P.3, Accident Register, it is stated that the injured was brought by Ravichandran, P.W.2 and it is mentioned that the injured was alleged to have been assaulted by 5 known persons with "joahYk;. trpahYk;. mUthshYk;@ about 11.00 pm., at the main Road at Devambadivalasu in front of his sister's house on 18.4.1998. It is further stated in Ex.P.3 that the patient was conscious, oriented and was obeying the oral commands. On the instruction of P.W.5, the injured was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, where P.W.6 admitted him and gave him treatment. In Ex.P.6, it is stated that the injured was attacked by 3 known persons at 9.00 pm., with sticks. The appellant was admitted at the Government Medical College, Coimbatore at 9.55 a.m., on 19.4.1998. Thus it could be seen that in Ex.P.3 the earliest version was that the deceased was attacked by 5 known persons at 11.00 p.m., with three types of weapons like stick, vasi and aruval. But when the patient was admitted at 9.55 a.m., on the same day at Government Medical College, Coimbatore, the version was that he was assaulted by three known persons at 9.00 pm., with sticks. Thus there is contradiction with regard to the number of persons who attacked the deceased and also with regard to the use of weapons by the accused and also the time of occurrence. But, in Ex.P.1 complaint itself, it is stated that two persons A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased by Vasi and iron pipe at 11.00 p.m., Thus the number of persons and weapons are totally different as far as Ex.P.1 complaint is concerned. But, in Ex.P.1 complaint itself, it is stated that two persons A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased by Vasi and iron pipe at 11.00 p.m., Thus the number of persons and weapons are totally different as far as Ex.P.1 complaint is concerned. Such contradictions would only probablise the case of the defence that there was a complaint by Mylsamy, father of the girl by name Baby who was said to have been abducted by one Chockalinam and in pursuance of the said complaint, P.Ws.1, 2 and other were summoned to Pollachi Police Station and were enquired and at the instance of a political influence, they were let off without any case being registered or the accused being arrested and when they were returning from the Police Station, the prosecution party picked up a quarrel near the house of Mylsamy, father of the kidnapped girl, in which they have committed mischief as shown in the photographs series produced along with Section 313 Cr.P.C., statement by the accused. 7. The above contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is supported by the admitted evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 themselves. During cross examination, P.W.1 has admitted that on 18.4.1998 Mylsamy, the father of the girl gave a complaint against himself, P.W.2 Kaliappan and his sons Duraiyan and Singuru and therefore the Police summoned them and they appeared before the Police and after enquring them the Police sent them back. P.W.2 has also admitted that on 18.4.1998 two Police constables came and took himself and four others including P.W.1 to Police station for enquiry. But unfortunately P.W.9, Head Constable or P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.11, Inspector of Police totally show ignorance of summoning them to Police station for enquiring them. I am at a loss to understand as to how two constables were deputed from the Police Station to take 5 persons to the Police Station for the purpose of enquiry without the knowledge of the Head Constable or the Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore the admission of P.Ws 1 and 2 that they were taken to the Police station for enquiry on the complaint made by the eloped girl's father only shows that the complaint lodged by the accused already was not considered by the Police and no action was taken at the instance of some influential person. Therefore the admission of P.Ws 1 and 2 that they were taken to the Police station for enquiry on the complaint made by the eloped girl's father only shows that the complaint lodged by the accused already was not considered by the Police and no action was taken at the instance of some influential person. The other document submitted along with Section 313 Cr.P.C., statement would show that the father of the eloped girl Mylsamy has sent complaints to higher officials like Dy. Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police and Collector to take action against the prosecution party in connection with the abduction of his minor daughter. However, a complaint has been registered in that regard only one month later on 14.5.1998 as a case in Crime No:84 of 1989 under Section 366 read with 109 IPC in which P.Ws.1 and 2 are accused. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would contend that Ex.P.1 complaint could not have come into existence at 6.15 a.m., on 19.4.1998 because in the complaint itself it is stated that P.W.1 accompanied the injured all the way to Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore. In Ex.P.1 complaint he has specifically stated that after taking the injured, his brother, to Pollachi Government Hospital in a taxi, on the advice of the Medical Officer, Pollachi Government Hospital, they have taken the injured to Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore and he has stated that Therefore, it shows that he was present at the time of admission of the injured in the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore. According to P.W.6, the time of admission is 9.55 a.m., on 19.4.1998. The version given in the complaint is that after admitting the injured in the Government Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore he lodged the complaint. But the distance between Coimbatore to Pollachi is 45 kilometers and therefore, P.W.1 could have lodged the complaint only after 11.00 a.m., Thus the complaint is said to have been given by P.W.1 at 6.15 a.m., could not have been possible. Therefore, Ex.P.1 complaint could not have come into existence at 6.15 a.m., on 19.4.1998 as alleged by the prosecution. It is unfortunate that on the way to Government Hospital, Pollachi there is a Police Station, but no complaint was lodged; on the way to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, there is a Police Station, but no complaint was lodged. Therefore, Ex.P.1 complaint could not have come into existence at 6.15 a.m., on 19.4.1998 as alleged by the prosecution. It is unfortunate that on the way to Government Hospital, Pollachi there is a Police Station, but no complaint was lodged; on the way to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, there is a Police Station, but no complaint was lodged. If the claim of P.W.1 that he did not accompany the injured all the way to Coimbatore, there is no explanation as to why P.W.1 did not go to Police station immediately to lodge a complaint. Further, the FIR, Ex.P.10 which was prepared based on Ex.P.1 complaint has reached the court only two days later i.e., on 21.4.1998 and thus there is a delay in the FIR reaching the court. The delay in lodging the complaint and the delay in the FIR reaching the court is also not explained by the prosecution. 9. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased was suffering from hernia for 7 years for which he was taking treatment with Dr.Thangamuthu. The injury is not said to be the direct cause for causing the death of the deceased, but the injuries are only proximate cause for the death as the injured died in the hospital 10 days after taking treatment. Probably the injury might have accelerated the seriousness of the hernia decease which is the main reason for the death. But the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not clear as to who caused the injury No.2. They simply say that both the accused assaulted the deceased. 10. As already discussed, there are there different versions one before P.W.5, Doctor at Pollachi Government Hospital, another at P.W.6, Doctor at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and another before P.W.9, Head Constable of Pollachi Taluk Police Station. In all the three versions the number of accused are different, time of occurrence is different, the weapons said to have been used are also different. Such inconsistent versions only goes to show that the occurrence has taken place in the manner and circumstance as stated by the accused in which the prosecution parties might have been the aggressors, because they were enraged by the complaint filed by the father of the abducted minor girl and that could be the only reason why three different versions being spoken to at different places at different times. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 11. In the circumstances, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused are set aside. Bail bond already executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.