Judgment :- (Criminal appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 06.05.2002 in sessions case No.269 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram.) K. Raviraja Pandian, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Villupuram in Sessions Case No.269 of 2001 by the appellants, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in the said sessions case. They were tried for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with one Rani, who was arrayed as the third accused in the said case for having attacked their brother Sekar, the deceased, at 09.00 pm on 05.05.2001 in front of the house of the deceased as a result of which he died on 11.05.2001 in the hospital. The said Rani (A3) was also charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for attacking P.W.2 Shankar. On completion of the trial, accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.250/- each carrying a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. The third accused Rani was acquitted of both the charges. Hence, this appeal is filed by accused 1 and 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the acquitted third accused will hereinafter be referred to in the rank as they were arrayed before the Sessions Court. 2. To bring home the charges the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and marked 21 exhibits and two material objects. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence. 3. The case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the evidence and exhibits is as follows : P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Sekar. The deceased is the brother of accused 1 to 3. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neigbours. There were family disputes regarding partition of the property. The elders in the village partitioned the property as well as the debts among the brothers and sister. As the debts were not cleared by any of the brothers, the creditors approached the deceased for payment of the debts. The deceased informed them that he would sell the land and settle all the debts for which the accused objected to. The elders in the village partitioned the property as well as the debts among the brothers and sister. As the debts were not cleared by any of the brothers, the creditors approached the deceased for payment of the debts. The deceased informed them that he would sell the land and settle all the debts for which the accused objected to. Saying that only if the deceased is alive he would be able to sell the land, accused 1 to 3 came to the house of the deceased at about 09.00 pm on 05.05.2001. The first accused attacked the deceased on his head with koduval, M.O.1. The second accused brought a stick, M.O.2, and beat on the head of the deceased. P.W.1 tried to prevent it, but she was pulled down by the second accused, who fisted on the stomach of the deceased. The third accused beat with a stick on the right leg of the deceased. P.W.2 when he passed through that way, saw the second accused fisting on the stomach of the deceased and the first accused was having a koduval in his hand and the third accused was armed with a stick and when he intervened the third accused attacked him on his head with the stick. P.W.2 fainted and fell down. P.W.3 also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.5 took the injured Sekar to the St. Thomas hospital at Chethupattu in his TVS 50 moped. P.W.1 went to her sister's house to get some money for treatment and went to the hospital. 4. When P.W.9 Dr.Brammananda Reddy, a doctor attached to St. Thomas Hospital at Chethupattu, Tiruvannamalai District was on duty at 10.00 pm on 05.05.2001, the deceased was brought with injuries. P.W.9 admitted him in the hospital and sent an intimation, Ex.P.7 to the police. P.W.10 Dr.Karthick treated the injured Sekar. Sekar was operated upon on the same day for the hole found in his intestine. Ex.P.8 is the case history. P.W.14 Dr.Androne is examined to speak about the treatment given to P.W.2 Shankar. According to him, around 10.00 pm on 05.05.2001 one person was brought with injuries on his head and that he treated him with first aid and thereafter he did not turn up. No wound certificate is marked or any prescription is marked. 5. In the meantime, inspite of the treatment given, Sekar died on 11.05.2001. According to him, around 10.00 pm on 05.05.2001 one person was brought with injuries on his head and that he treated him with first aid and thereafter he did not turn up. No wound certificate is marked or any prescription is marked. 5. In the meantime, inspite of the treatment given, Sekar died on 11.05.2001. The death intimation, Ex.P.9 was sent to the police by one Dr. Dinesh. Immediately on receipt of the death intimation, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Sathiamangalam police station, proceeded to the hospital, where he examined P.W.1 and obtained her complaint, Ex.P.1 around 06.00 am on 11.05.2001 and on returning to the police station, he registered a case in crime No.266 of 2001 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P.17 is the first information report. Thereafter, P.W.15 proceeded to the scene of occurrence, where he prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P2 in the presence of P.W.6 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.18. At 12.00 noon he proceeded to the hospital, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by examining witnesses. Ex.P.19 is the inquest report prepared by him. He handed over the dead body to P.W.13 a constable for subjecting the body for postmortem. 6. P.W.11, Dr.Kalasri conducted postmortem on the body of Sekar, on being produced, and found as many as seven injuries, which are found noted in Ex.P.10 postmortem certificate. P.W.13, the constable, after postmortem handed over the body to P.W.1. 7. P.W.15 continued his investigation. On 14.5.2001, he arrested the third accused at 4.00 P.M and sent her to judicial remand. On 17.5.2001, he arrested accused 1 and 2 at 1.00 pm and recorded their confessional statements. Pursuant to the admissible portions of the confessional statements given by accused 1 and 2 – Exs.P.20 and P.21, the koduval (M.O.1) and stick (M.O.2), which were hidden in the bush near a lake in Nolumbai village, were recovered under Mahazar Ex.P.21. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He forwarded the material objects and the viscera of Sekar for chemical examination on 17.5.2001. P.W.16, who succeeded P.W.15, took up the further investigation in this case. On receipt of the chemical analysis report and the viscera report, Exs.P.13 and P.14, showed them to the Doctor and got the final opinion. On 23.7.2001, he examined the Doctors, who treated the deceased and recorded their statements. P.W.16, who succeeded P.W.15, took up the further investigation in this case. On receipt of the chemical analysis report and the viscera report, Exs.P.13 and P.14, showed them to the Doctor and got the final opinion. On 23.7.2001, he examined the Doctors, who treated the deceased and recorded their statements. On completing the investigation, he filed the final report on 9.8.2001 against the accused for the offences stated above. 8. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied their complicity in the crime. 9. On completion of the evidence and on consideration of the same, and the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court has convicted accused 1 and 2 as stated above. The correctness of that judgment is assailed before this Court by accused 1 and 2 by contending that there is an enormous unexplained delay in filing the first information report, which forms the basis for the case. The first information report on the basis of the intimation given under Ex.P.7 and after examining P.W.1 has been suppressed by the prosecution and the first information report on which the entire case of the prosecution has been built is the subsequent first information report, on the basis of Ex.P.9, the death intimation and the statement given by P.W.1 thereafter. It is further contended that the injuries found the on deceased at the time of admission into the hospital could not be the cause for the death. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and perused the materials available on record. 10. The fact that Sekar died on account of homicidal violence stands proved through the evidence of P.W.11 and Ex.P.10, wherein the Doctor has opined that the deceased would have died of peritonitis with cardiopulmonary arrest 12 to 16 hours prior to postmortem and due to old extradural blood clot sustained 3 to 4 days back. The said fact is not disputed by the defence either before the trial Court or before this Court. 11. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the earlier complaint given by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased on 06.05.2001 has been suppressed. Let us consider the first contention. The incident took place at 09.00 pm on 05.05.2001. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital by P.W.5 in a TVS moped. 11. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the earlier complaint given by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased on 06.05.2001 has been suppressed. Let us consider the first contention. The incident took place at 09.00 pm on 05.05.2001. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital by P.W.5 in a TVS moped. P.W.9, the doctor, who was on duty, admitted the deceased at 10.00 pm and sent Ex.P.7, intimation, to the police, which is evident from the evidence of P.W.9. It is also the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased that after the occurrence the deceased was taken to St.Thomas Hospital at Chethupattu on the same night i.e., on 05.05.2001. On 06.05.2001 the police attached to Avalurpet police station enquired her in the hospital and she explained to the police that accused 1 and 2 attacked her husband Sekar and gave a statement to that effect and signed the same. Her further evidence is that after the death of her husband on 11.05.2001, once again the police enquired her and obtained a statement from her. It is also pertinent to note that in the cross examination of P.W.9, the doctor has also stated that the Sub Inspector of Police, Avalurpet Police station came to the hospital on 05.05.2001 at 10.30 pm and enquired about the incident. This statement makes it categorically clear that the first complaint has been given by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased on 06.05.2001 to Avalurpet police station about the incident that took place on 05.05.2001. 12. In addition to that, P.W.15, the Investigating Officer has, in uncertain terms, admitted that on receipt of Ex.P.7, intimation on 05.05.2001 he went to the St.Thomas hospital at Chethupattu and he further admitted that he has not recorded the same in the general diary. His further admission is that he never examined the doctor who treated the deceased. Though he denied the suggestion that 06.05.2001, on the basis of the statement of P.W.1, a first information report has been prepared and as there was no details about the injury caused and the person who caused the injuries, the same was suppressed, but admitted that as there was no blood stains in M.Os.1 and 2, the same were not sent for chemical examination. Apart from that in Ex.P.9, death intimation sent from the hospital, the earlier intimation, Ex.P.7 dated 05.05.2001 has been referred to. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why the first information report has not been registered on the basis of Ex.P.7, intimation, which was sent by the hospital on 05.05.2001 and the statement obtained from P.W.1 on 06.05.2001 and what is the reason for registering the crime only on 11.05.2001 after the receipt of Ex.P.9, death intimation. In normal course of event, on receipt of Ex.P.7 intimation on 05.05.2001 and after obtaining the statement from P.W.1 on 06.05.2001, a crime ought to have been registered against known persons who are stated to have assaulted Sekar, who was admitted in the hospital, for the appropriate offence. No action whatsoever has been taken on the intimation and the statement above referred to. There is also no explanation forthcoming to support the case of the prosecution to the effect that the first information registered on 11.05.2001 is the only first information report. The above stated circumstances of the case, particularly, the absence of any explanation offered for not registering the crime on 05.05.2001 itself and registering the crime only after receipt of death intimation, Ex.P.9 on 11.05.2001 go to the very root of the matter and we are satisfied that there is suppression of material fact and the case built by the prosecution loses its base and gives raise a doubt about the prosecution story. As we reached the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to succeed on benefit of doubt, we are not dilating the second point raised that the injury on the deceased would not be a cause for the death. 13. In the light of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the benefit of doubt could be given to accused 1 and 2 and the same is given to them. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 and 2 are set aside and both the accused are acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal stands allowed. The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. The fine amounts, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.