Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by the wife of the victim viz., Amudha against the Judgment in S.C.No.99 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 2.The accused has been charged under Section 302 IPC for having murdered Nagaraj, co-employee of Agricultural Extension Centre (Godown) Marandahalli District, the husband of Amudha, the revision petitioner herein. 3. After the full fledged trial, the case is ended in acquittal. So against the findings of the learned trial Judge, this revision has been preferred by P.W.2, Amudha, the wife of the late Nagaraj. 4. The short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are as follows: Both the deceased Nagaraj and the accused Chinnasamy were working in the Agricultural Extension Centre at Marandahalli. The deceased was the Manager of the said office wherein the accused was working as a night watchman. The victim was found dead on 21. 2002 night in a pool of blood in the office. A complaint was preferred by P.W.1 on the basis of which P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police had registered the case under Section 302 IPC under Crime No.54 of 2002 at Marandahalli Police Station. 4a) P.W.1 is the Agricultural Officer of Papparapatti. At the time of occurrence, he was working as an Agricultural Officer at Palacode. He knows about the deceased Nagaraj as well as the accused Chinnasamy who were working at Agricultural Extension Centre, Maranadahalli as a Manager and night watchman respectively. According to him, fertilisers were supplied to the agriculturists from the Agricultural Extension office at Marandahallai and that he had received a complaint from the Assistant Agricultural Officer, Marandahalli complaining that both the accused and the deceased have committed mistakes in supply of the fertilizers to the agriculturists. According to the said complaint, the accused and deceased have supplied the fertilizers intended for the paddy to the coconut thope owners and supplied the fertilizers intended for coconut trees to the agriculturists who have raised paddy and that on the basis of the said complaint, he proceeded to Marandahalli Agricultural Extension Centre on 11. According to the said complaint, the accused and deceased have supplied the fertilizers intended for the paddy to the coconut thope owners and supplied the fertilizers intended for coconut trees to the agriculturists who have raised paddy and that on the basis of the said complaint, he proceeded to Marandahalli Agricultural Extension Centre on 11. 2002 and checked the relevant registers and on the basis of the report received from the Assistant Agricultural Officer against the accused and the deceased, he forwarded the report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Palacode for initiating action against both the Manager(Deceased) and the watchman(accused). The Assistant Director of Agriculture also made a visit to the Agricultural Extension Centre at Marandahalli on 21. 2002 and checked the stock register wherein he found that the shortage in the manure intended for the paddy and found excess of stock in the manure intended for the coconut trees. According to P.W.1, the deceased Nagaraj had preferred a written complaint against the accused alleging that the accused with the help of duplicate key had opened the godown and committed the theft of the manure from the stock and that on 11. 2002 when he made a surprise inspection at the Godown, the accused did not turn up for duty till 6.00p.m. In this regard, the Manager(deceased) had preferred a complaint against the accused and on the basis of the said complaint, he issued memo to the accused calling for explanation on 21. 2002. He would further depose that on 21. 2002 at about 5.00p.m., the deceased informed him that the accused was threatening him (deceased) on the basis of the memo issued by him(P.W.1) on the basis of the complaint preferred by him(deceased). On 21. 2002 at about 12.00 noon, P.W.1 went to the Agricultural Extension Centre , Marandahalli for inspection and at that time, he found that the door was kept ajar and when he entered into the room, he found the deceased Nagaraj was lying dead on the ground in a pool of blood and there was a stick found by the side of the corpse. Immediately,he rushed to the police station and preferred a complaint and thereafter informed his higher officials about the occurrence. He would further state that after preferring the complaint, he went to the house of the accused but found the door of the house of the accused was locked. Immediately,he rushed to the police station and preferred a complaint and thereafter informed his higher officials about the occurrence. He would further state that after preferring the complaint, he went to the house of the accused but found the door of the house of the accused was locked. So only on suspicion, he had preferred a complaint against the accused under ExP1. 4b) P.W.2 is the unfortunate wife of the deceased Nagaraj. She would depose that her husband deceased Nagaraj was working in the Agricultural Extension Centre at Maranadahalli and that he died on 21. 2002 and that the accused was also working in the same office as a night watchman. According to her, her husband joined in the office just five months prior to the occurrence. She would say that even a month prior to the date of occurrence, the accused had indulged in committing theft of manure from the office and also committing mistake in distribution of the manure to the agriculturists and when this was questioned by her husband, she heard from her husband that there was frequent quarrel between her husband and the accused. She was informed about the occurrence on 21. 2002 at about 1.00p.m., by her father. After hearing about the incident, she went to the Agricultural Extension Centre at Maranadahalli and found the dead body of her husband in the office with an injury on the back side of the head and also she saw the stick near the side of the corpse. 4c) P.W.3 is the father of P.W.2 and the father in law of the deceased Nagaraj. He would depose that his son in law deceased Nagaraj had informed on very many occassions that the accused had committed theft of manure from the office with the help of a duplicate key and that he received the information about the death of his son in law through telephone at about 11.00.a.m., on 21. 2002 from his nephew. Immediately, he rushed to the place of occurrence along with his daughter and other villagers found his son in law lying dead in a pool of blood. He would state that he has also preferred a complaint against the accused in the police station on suspicion. 2002 from his nephew. Immediately, he rushed to the place of occurrence along with his daughter and other villagers found his son in law lying dead in a pool of blood. He would state that he has also preferred a complaint against the accused in the police station on suspicion. 4d) P.W.4 is an Assistant Agricultural Officer who knows both the deceased and the accused and that he recommended for an agriculturist for the distribution of manure for his coconut trees.But later he came to know that by mistake wrong manure has been supplied to the said agriculturists ie., instead of supplying manure intended for coconut trees they have supplied manure intended for paddy and in this connection he had preferred a complaint to the higher officials on 11. 2002. On his complaint, the Assistant Director of Agriculture visited the office in which the deceased and the accused were working and point out some irregularities and issued a memo to the accused and on 21. 2002 he came to know that a person was lying dead in the office of the Agricultural Extension Centre at Maranadahalli. Immediately, he went to the said office at about 1.00 p.m., on 21. 2002 and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood with an injury on the back side of the head. 4e) P.W.5 was the then retired Additional Director, Agriculture Department, Tamil Nadu. At the time of occurrence, he was working as Assistant Director of Agriculture at Palacode and that he knows both the deceased and the accused who were working at Agricultural Extension Centre at Maranadahalli as a Manager and Night watchman respectively. He would depose that for the convenience of the public, the said Centre was working even during Sunday instead Tuesday was declared as a weekly holiday for the Agricultural Extension Centre at Maranadahalli. He had received a complaint about the said Centre at Maranadahalli regarding irregularities in the supply of manure to the agriculturists. On the basis of the complaint, he inspected the Agricultural Extension Centre on 21. 2002 and found that the shortage in the stock and in this regard, he has also made an entry in the stock register and had directed the Agricultural Development Officer Thiru T.K.Sampath to enquire into the matter. The deceased Nagaraj had preferred a complaint to T.K.Sampath, Agricultural Development Officer on 21. 2002 and found that the shortage in the stock and in this regard, he has also made an entry in the stock register and had directed the Agricultural Development Officer Thiru T.K.Sampath to enquire into the matter. The deceased Nagaraj had preferred a complaint to T.K.Sampath, Agricultural Development Officer on 21. 2002 complaining that the accused had committied theft of manure from the Godown on 11. 2002 with the help of a duplicate key. On his direction, T.K.Sampath, Agricultural Development Officer had issued two memos to the accused on 21. 2002. On 21. 2002 both the accused and the deceased came to the Agricultural Development Office at Palacode and at that time the deceased Nagaraj was shouting at the accused and that he pacified both of them. Immediately, the accused left the place. Both the memos were served to the accused through the deceased Nagaraj and that T.K.Sampath, the Agricultural Development Officer informed him over phone on 21. 2002 at about 12.30p.m., about the murder of Nagaraj and immediately, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the corpse of the deceased Nagaraj which was lying in a pool of blood with an injury on the back side of the head and he had seen a stick near the dead body and when he enquired about the accused, he has informed that the accused had left to his village on the previous night with his family. 4f) P.W.6 has not supported the case of the prosecution.Hence he was treated as a hostile witness. P.W.7 was the then Village Administrative Officer who would depose that he knows about the accused who was working as a night watch man at the Agricultural Extension Centre, Maranadahalli and that he received information on 21. 2002 at about 10.30p.m., that a person was lying dead in the Agricultural Office at Maranadahalli and the body could not be identified and immediately he proceeded to the place of occurrence and found the body of the deceased Nagaraj lying dead inside the office and immediately he informed to the police, who came to the place of occurrence, within a short time. 4g) P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered the First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Maranadahalli Police Station under Crime No.54 of 2002. Ex P12 is the copy of FIR. 4g) P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered the First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Maranadahalli Police Station under Crime No.54 of 2002. Ex P12 is the copy of FIR. After recording the FIR, the copy of the Express FIR has sent to the concerned officials including the Court. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer in this case. After receiving Express First Information Report in this case, he had proceeded to the place of occurrence on 21. 2002 at about 2.15p.m., and prepared Observation mahazar Ex P2 in the presence of P.W.7 and had recovered M.O.1 stick from the place of ocurrence under Ex P3 recovery mahazar in the presence of P.W.6. Ex P13 is the rough sketch prepared by P.W.12. He had conducted inquest on the same day between 3.00p.m and 5.30p.m., on the corpse of Nagaraj.Ex P14 is the inquest report. The corpse was sent to postmortem through P.W.10 postmortem constable who had identified the corpse to the Doctor P.W.8 who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of Nagaraj. 4h) The atuopsy was conducted by P.W.8 on 21. 2002 at about 10.40a.m., on the request made by the Investigating Officer under Ex P4. Ex P6 is the postmortem report. The following injuries were noted in Ex P6 post mortem certificate. "A Lacerated injury in the right parital region vertical in direction about 6 x 3 cm in size with bone deep 2) A lacerated injury in the right parital occipital region in Horizontal direction about 2 x 2 cm in size into bone deep. 3) A lacerated injury in the horizontal direction right occipital region in about 4 x 2 cm in size into bone deep. 4) Contusion in the anterior aspect of the neck below the chin about 4 x 4 cm in size. 5) Contusion in the right anterior chest wall vertical in direction about 6 x3 cm in size. 6) Contusion in the right anterior chest wall vertical direction about 6 x 5 cm in size. 7) Contusion in the left anterior chest wall below the left nipple vertical in direction about 6 x 3 cm in size. Internal Examination: Hyoid bone: Opening the anterior aspect of the neck congestion over the hyoid bone. Horn of the hyoid bone fractured(preserved) Ribs: number of fracture of the ribs. Heart:Weight normal on cross section congested. 7) Contusion in the left anterior chest wall below the left nipple vertical in direction about 6 x 3 cm in size. Internal Examination: Hyoid bone: Opening the anterior aspect of the neck congestion over the hyoid bone. Horn of the hyoid bone fractured(preserved) Ribs: number of fracture of the ribs. Heart:Weight normal on cross section congested. Stomach contains 150 ml of brown coloured liquid pesent. Intestines Distented gas. Kidney weighed normal on cross section congested. Spleen: Weighed normal on cross section congested opening of the skull: Linear fracture over the right frontal region 8 cm length 2) Linear fractrure of the left occipital parital region about 12 cm in length Brain: Sub dural and infre cerebrel haemorrhage seen in the right frontal occipital and parietal region Base of the skull. Number of fracture of the base of the skull." The doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to mutiple injuries and injury to the vital organ like brain and would have died about 36 to 48 hours prior to the autopsy. But opinion reserved due to chemical analysis report of Hyoid bone. Final opinion: The deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and injury to the vital organ brain and would have died at about 36 hours to 48 hours prior to autopsy. After Autopsy, M.O2,M.O.3,M.o.4 and M.O.5, the wearing apparels of the deceased were recovered by P.W.10 and handed over to P.W.12 the Investigating Officer. P.W.12 had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. 4i) P.W.9 was the then Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrates Court, Palacode. According to him, on the requisition made by the Inspector of Police under Ex P7, he had forwarded the material objects connected with this case to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemcial examination along with the letter of requisition Ex P8 from the Court. Ex P9 is the analysts report .Exs P10 and P11 are the serologists report. 5. After knowing the accused had surrendered on 2. 2002 before the Court at Krishnagiri, P.W.12 had filed an application to get the accused for police custody on 2. Ex P9 is the analysts report .Exs P10 and P11 are the serologists report. 5. After knowing the accused had surrendered on 2. 2002 before the Court at Krishnagiri, P.W.12 had filed an application to get the accused for police custody on 2. 2002 and examined him at about 8.00 p.m. The accused gave voluntary confession statement which was recorded by him (P.W.12) in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and again produced the accused before the Judicial Magistrates Court on 2. 2002. After completing the formalities, P.W.12 had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 23. 2002 under Section 302 IPC. 6. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would totally deny his complicity with the crime. 7. Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined and Exs A1 to A14 were exhibited and M.Os 1 to 5 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the accused. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a definite conclusion that the guilt against the accused under Section 302 IPC has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused under Section 302 IPC. Against the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, the State has not preferred any appeal but P.W2 the wife of the victim viz., Amudha had preferred this revision. 8. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether is there is any prima facie case made out against the accused to warrant conviction under Section 302 IPC. 9. The Point: The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on the ground that the earliest first information report preferred by the Village Administrative Officer was not registered by P.W.11,the Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the first information report on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1. According to P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, he came to know about the lying of dead body in the office room of the Agricultural Extension Centre Maranadahalli at about 10.15 a.m., on 21. 2002. According to P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, he came to know about the lying of dead body in the office room of the Agricultural Extension Centre Maranadahalli at about 10.15 a.m., on 21. 2002. In the chief Examination itself, he would depose that he immediately went to the Agricultural Extension Centre, Maranadahalli and found the dead body of Nagaraj lying in a pool of blood in the office room and that immediately he rushed to the police station and preferred a complaint and that he immediately informed his higher officials and on his information, the police immediately visited the place of occurrence. When this fact was put to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered the first information report. In the cross examination P.W.11 would admit that at about 11.00 a.m., on 21. 2002 the Village Administrative Officer informed about the lying of the dead body of Nagaraj inside the office room of the Agricultural Extension Centre, Marandahalli. P.W.11 would further admit that he has not reduced to writing the information passed on to him by the Village Administrative Officer, and has not obtained the signature from him. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the failure of P.W.11 in non registration of the earliest information caused clouds on the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 comes to the scene of occurrence only at 12.00 noon and had preferred Ex P1 complaint with P.W.11 at 1.00 p.m. 10. Apart from this P.W.2 the wife of the victim would also state in her evidence in the cross examination she along with her father went to the police station at 1.30p.m., on the fateful day and her father had preferred a written complaint to the police. P.W.3 would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 to the effect that he had preferred a complaint against the accused on suspicion. But the said complaint has also not seen the light of the day. 11. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 is the officer of the Agricultural Department. According to P.W.1 the police came to the place of occurrence as soon as he passed on the information at 10.30a.m on 21. 2002 itself. So even at the time of visit of P.W.1 at 12.00 noon to the place of occurrence the police were actually available at the place of occurrence. According to P.W.1 the police came to the place of occurrence as soon as he passed on the information at 10.30a.m on 21. 2002 itself. So even at the time of visit of P.W.1 at 12.00 noon to the place of occurrence the police were actually available at the place of occurrence. P.W.1 would have preferred a complaint to the police even at the place of occurrence itself. So there is every possibility of deliberation between P.W.1 and the police officials before preferring Ex P1 complaint which was registered only at 1.00p.m., on 21. 2002. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that in the Agricultural Extension Centre only the deceased and the accused were working as Manager and night watchman respectively. But absolutely there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that both the accused and the deceased were seen together at the time of occurrence or immediately prior to the time of occurrence. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place on a Sunday. P.W.5 who is an Assistant Director of Agriculture alone would say that even during Sunday, the Agricultural Extension Centre at Maranadahalli will be working. It is pertinent to note in this case that not even the attendance register of the Agricultural Extension Centre at Marandahalli was not seized by the Investigating Officer to show that both the accused and the deceased were working in the office on the fateful day viz, Sunday. During questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused would state that he was on leave from 21. 2002 to 30.1.2002. In a way the accused had pleaded the defence of alibi. A suggestion in this regard was also put to the Investigating Officer that the accused was on leave even two days prior to the date of occurrence. To falisfy the defence of alibi, the investigating officer would have produced the attendance register relating to the accused as well as the deceased to show that the accused was on duty during the relevant period ie., from 21. 2002 to 30.1.2002. 13. To falisfy the defence of alibi, the investigating officer would have produced the attendance register relating to the accused as well as the deceased to show that the accused was on duty during the relevant period ie., from 21. 2002 to 30.1.2002. 13. According to P.W.1,the motive for the occurrence was that the deceased Nagaraj had preferred a complaint against the accused as to theft of manure from the godown during the night with a help of a duplicate key and on the basis of the complaint preferred by the deceased Nagaraj, he had initiated departmental proceedings and issued memo on 21. 2002. The records relating to the initiation of the departmental action against the accused was not produced in this case to show that the accused was having motive against the deceased. 14. Another important factor which glance at the case of the prosecution is that the postmortem report ExP6. The doctor who had conducted autopsy was examined as P.W.8 who would admit that during autopsy, he could notice fracture of hyoid bone of the deceased which is postmortem in nature. This very fact will go to show that some one had meddled with the dead body after the crime. It is evidence in this case that service of sniffer dog was pressed into service in this case. But there is no evidence on record to show that what was the result of the service of the utilisation of the sniffer dog in this case, if the accused would have committed the offence certainly the sniffer dog after taking the scent from the place of occurrence would have gone to the house of the accused at least. The evidence is silent in this regard. A stick has been found near the corpse of Nagaraj which was marked as M.O.1.But no finger print has been lifted from the said stick. Even though the confession statement was recorded from the accused by P.W.12 , no recovery has been made from the accused in pursuance of the confession statement to rely on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.99 of 2003 coming to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly. 16. 15. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.99 of 2003 coming to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly. 16. In the result, the revision is dismissed, confirming the Judgment in S.C.NO.99 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.