JUDGEMENT Per K.N. BASHA, J. This appeal is preferred by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.8 of 1999 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304(II) I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The accused was acquitted in respect of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. The accused faced the trial in this case under the following backdrop. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and P.W.7 is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased used to go for grazing cattle daily at 2 p.m. and used to return before 5 p.m. On 9.5.97 at about 2 p.m. the deceased took her cattle for grazing but she had not returned back home till 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. P.W.7 daughter of the deceased sent a word to her father and brothers through her brother one Vimal and searched the deceased, During their search P.W.1 and P.W.7 and others found only the cow near the railway line. While they were returning back to their house through the Casuarina grove, they found the chappals belonging to their mother, the deceased and they found the body of their mother in the field belonging to Jagannathan. Both P.W.1 and P.W.7 found the deceased lying dead and her neck was tied with a saree. P.W.1 and P.W.7 also found some injuries on the body of the deceased. There was bleeding on the left ear and stab injuries on her right hand and left fore-head. Both P.W.1 and P.W.7 found the body of the deceased only at 9 p.m 3. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Thirupa-puliyur police station and gave a report Ex. P.1 to P.W.9 head constable at 11 p.m. on 9.5.1997 and P.W.9 on receipt of the same registered a case in Crime No.421/97 for suspicious death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.8 is the First Information Report and P.W.9 sent the First Information Report to the higher officials and to the Court. 4. P.W 10 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police received the information about the occurrence and the First Information Report copy on 9.5.97 and he went to the scene of occurrence at 11.45 p.m. and stayed there. On 10.5.97 at 5.30 a.m., he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.9 and rough sketch Ex.P.10. 4. P.W 10 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police received the information about the occurrence and the First Information Report copy on 9.5.97 and he went to the scene of occurrence at 11.45 p.m. and stayed there. On 10.5.97 at 5.30 a.m., he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.9 and rough sketch Ex.P.10. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 10.5.97 from 7.30 a.m to 9.30.a.m. Ex.P.11 is the Inquest Report. Thereafter, P.W.10 altered the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. sent the report Ex.P.12 to the higher officials on 25.6.97. He prepared the observation mahazar at Maravalli Thottam where the body of the deceased was found lying. Thereafter, he examined the other witnesses. 5. On 26.6.97 P.W.10 examined P.W.4 and P.W.6 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 is from Natham village and P.W.6 is from Siruvothur village and both of them were doing business in Guava fruits during Fridays. On 9.5.97 both of them were proceeding to the garden of one Lakshminarayan for purchase of Guava. At about 1.30 p.m. the deceased came there to graze the cattle. At that time, the accused came there and abused the deceased using filthy language in respect of the deceased grazing her cattle in the field of the accused. Immediately, the accused took M.O.3 stick and assaulted the deceased on her left neck and also on the head and the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the accused lifted the deceased but the deceased was not able to be lifted and the accused with M.O.4 Screw driver stabbed the deceased on her right hand and fore head. Both P.W.4 and 6 stated that after witnessing the occurrence they simply left for their place. Both of them categorically stated that they have not informed any one including the police till they were examined by the police on 26.6.97. P.W.10 in continuation of his investigation after examining P.W.4 and 6 and after recording their statements on 25.6.97 at 7.30 p.m., arrested the accused near Kilgavarapathu purakovil. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused under Ex.P.5, P.W.10 recovered M.O.3 casuarina stick and M.O.4 screw driver under Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7. Thereafter, he remanded the accused for judicial custody. 6. P.W.5 the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti conducted post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased on 10.5.97 at 12.30 p.m. and found the following injuries: 1. Thereafter, he remanded the accused for judicial custody. 6. P.W.5 the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti conducted post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased on 10.5.97 at 12.30 p.m. and found the following injuries: 1. Punctured wound with blood clot on forehead left. 2. Punctured wound on the right arm ½ x ½ x 2cm above the elbow; 3. Abrasion on right forearm. 4. Interrupted contusion of four numbers 2, x 1 cm, left side of neck and back 5. Contusion of right side of face with sub-conjunctional haemorrhage right eye. 6. Hyoid bone fractured. The Doctor was of the opinion that the above injuries are ante mortem in nature and the doctor also gave his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of strangulation, which caused asphyxia. Ex.P.2 is the post-mortem certificate. 7. P.W.10 thereafter examined the doctor P.W.5 and received post-mortem certificate. P.W.10 after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused on 6.8.97 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges against the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 10, filed Ex.P1 to P14 and marked M.Os. 1 to 4. 9. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.c. after explaining to him the incriminating evidence found against him, the accused denied the same and he further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not chosen to examine any witness on his side. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant R. Muralitharan took me through the entire evidence meticulously and made the following contentions. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, by adducing clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of P.Ws.4 and 6 who claimed to be the eye-witnesses in this case. But they have been examined by the police only on 26.6.97 after a delay of 1½ months as the occurrence itself took place on 9.5.97. It is also further contended that P.Ws.4 and 6 eye-witnesses have categorically stated that they have simply went back to their house after the occurrence and they did not inform anyone till they were examined by the police on 26.6.97. It is also further contended that P.Ws.4 and 6 eye-witnesses have categorically stated that they have simply went back to their house after the occurrence and they did not inform anyone till they were examined by the police on 26.6.97. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is unsafe to place reliance on such witnesses as no credibility could be attached to their version. Learned counsel for the appellant also further contended that the version of the witnesses P.Ws.4 and 6 is also falsified by the medical evidence since as per the medical evidence the doctor P.W.5 has stated that the deceased died due to strangulation. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the evidence on P.W.10, the Investigating Officer in this case as P.W.10 has categorically admitted that his investigation did not disclose that the deceased was strangulated by the accused. 11.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate criminal side contended that the prosecution has proved the case by adducing acceptable evidences. He also submits that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 is clear and cogent and their evidence is supported by the medical evidence. Learned Government Advocate also contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 is also very clear and categorical in respect of the deceased going for grazing the cattle on the fateful day of occurrence. as she was going regularly during Fridays at 2 p.m. and return usually at 5 p.m. But the deceased has not returned home on the fateful day. Learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 and only due to their search the body was finally found in the field which belongs to none other than the father of the accused. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the motive namely that the deceased was grazing the cattle in the field of accused and the accused objected and abused the deceased which resulted in wordy quarrel and the body of the deceased itself was found in the field of the father of the accused. Therefore, learned Government Advocate submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. I have carefully and anxiously considered the rival contentions put forward by both sides. 13. Therefore, learned Government Advocate submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. I have carefully and anxiously considered the rival contentions put forward by both sides. 13. A perusal of the records clearly shows that the entire prosecution case rests solely on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 who claim to be the eye-witnesses in this case. The undisputed fact remains that the above stated so called eyewitnesses P.Ws.4 and 6 though claim to have witnessed the occurrence on 9.5.97 they have simply left the occurrence place inspite of the fact that they knew the deceased very well and did not whisper a word to any one nor inform the police till they were examined by the police on 26.6.97. It is also further relevant to be noted that there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution as to how the Investigating Officer P.W.10 traced this so called eye-witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 6 in this case. Added to this infirmity, P.W.4 stated that the accused beat the deceased with stick M.O.3 on her head and left shoulder and on the other hand it is stated by P.W.6 that the accused beat the deceased with M.O.3 stick on her left neck and head. It is further stated by P.W.4 that thereafter the deceased fell down and the accused lifted the deceased but she was not able to get up and at that time the accused stabbed her with M.O.4 screw driver on the fore head and right hand. The version of P.W.6 was similar to that of P.W.4. But the doctor P.W.5 has categorically stated that the deceased died due to strangulation which resulted in asphyxia. Both the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.4 and 6 have not stated that the accused strangulated the deceased. It is also relevant to note the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer to the effect that during his investigation no one stated to him that the deceased was strangulated. It is also further, admitted by P.W.10 the officer in this case that though it is claimed by the witnesses that infact the deceased was found tied with a saree but, that saree was not recovered by the police. Therefore, the version of P.Ws. 4 and 6 was clearly falsified by the medical evidence coupled with the evidence of P.W.10 the Investigation Officer. 14. Therefore, the version of P.Ws. 4 and 6 was clearly falsified by the medical evidence coupled with the evidence of P.W.10 the Investigation Officer. 14. It is also well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court of India that non disclosure of occurrence to any one by the alleged eye witnesses for a long and unexceptional delay is fatal to the prosecution case and such conduct of the said eye witnesses is to be considered as a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of such eyewitnesses. In State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda AIR 1976 SC 2488 : 1976 (4) SCC 288 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: "Where in a murder case the entire prosecution case depended on the evidence of a person claiming to be eye witness, and this witness did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and a half after the incident and the explanation offered for non-disclosure was unbelievable, held that such non-disclosure was a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witness and that the High Court was correct in rejecting it as untrustworthy and acquitting the accused." In Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab reported in 1996 MLJ (Crl.) 761 (S.C.): AIR 1996 SC 1186 : 1996 (2) SCC 350 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: "These two witnesses appear to us to be got-up witnesses. They saw a gruesome murder being committed with their own eyes and yet for reasons best known to them, they did not raise any alarm but went their way and did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone, not only that evening but even till the third day after the occurrence. Their conduct was thus most unnatural. This creates a serious doubt about their creditworthiness. .... Their conduct belies the possibility of their presence and various infirmities in their evidence, renders it unsafe to rely upon their testimony. 15. The above said propositions of law laid down by the Apex court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The conduct of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. This creates a serious doubt about their creditworthiness. .... Their conduct belies the possibility of their presence and various infirmities in their evidence, renders it unsafe to rely upon their testimony. 15. The above said propositions of law laid down by the Apex court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The conduct of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 4 and 6 in not informing any one immediately after the occurrence and not even to the police at the earliest point of time but they had informed the police only during their examination by the police after a period of 1½ months. It is also further relevant to be noted that though there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased for ten minutes, they have not prevented the accused attacking the deceased and they have simply remained as silent spectators inspite of the fact that they know the deceased very well. P.W.4 further stated in his evidence that he was threatened by the accused and therefore he ran away from the scene. But he has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was also threatened by the accused. Therefore, the conduct of the eye-witnesses P.Ws.4 and 6 is highly artificial, unnatural and unbelievable, throwing serious doubt about the veracity of their version. 16. Therefore, for the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused are set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Bail bond is cancelled.