Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The reference, R.T.No.5 of 2007 is by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore seeking confirmation of the death sentence, while the appeal, Crl.A.No.821 of 2007 is by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.77 of 2007. Both the reference and the criminal appeal are disposed of by this judgment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased-Damodaran initially married Tmt.Meenakshi, P.W.2 and thereafter, married Tmt.Nachi, P.W.1, who is none other than the sister of P.W.2. Even during the course of matrimonial life, P.W.1 developed illicit intimacy with the accused, who is the brother of the deceased. Just four months prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1 discontinued her illicit intimacy with the accused, as she wanted to live only with the deceased. As the accused insisted her to marry him, P.W.1 refused. As the accused felt that P.W.1 has refused to marry him only because of the subsisting marriage between herself and the deceased, he developed anger and decided to do away the deceased so as to marry P.W.1. 3. With the above motive, on 4. 2006 in the early morning at about 6.00 a.m., while the deceased and P.W.1 were fast asleep, the accused entered into the house with a stone, M.O.1 and threw the same crushing the head of the deceased, to which he succumbed. On seeing this, P.W.1 shouted and P.Ws.2, 3 & 4 came to the scene of occurrence. The accused ran away from that place and later on P.W.1 along with her uncle went to Tirupattur Taluk Police Station at about 2.00 p.m., and lodged the complaint-Ex.P-1 to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, which was registered in Crime No.459 of 2006 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The said First Information Report is Ex.P-18. He forwarded the express reports to the Court and to the higher officials. 4. Thereafter, at about 2.30 p.m., P.W.12 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-2 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-19. He examined P.Ws.1,2,3,4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars between 4.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-20. At about 4.50 p.m., he recovered the stone, M.O.1 from the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and one Vedi under the mahazar. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars between 4.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-20. At about 4.50 p.m., he recovered the stone, M.O.1 from the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and one Vedi under the mahazar. He sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable to the Government Tirupattur Hospital along with a requisition for conducting post-mortem. 5. P.W.8, the doctor attached to Government Tirupattur Hospital, on receipt of the requisition and the body commenced post-mortem on 4. 2006 at 12.00 noon and he found the following:- "Decomposition started - blisters all over the body. Head-depression over right parietal region with laceration about 2 cm length bone deep over right temporal region. Head laterally compressed. Bleeding through right ear. Blood preserved for analysis. On dissection: Head Skull - Sub perioteal haematoma all over the skull. Both parietal bones fracture at vertex suture line. Frontal bone fracture multiple pieces. Right temporal bone fracture into multiple pieces. Blood oozes through fracture lines. Brain laterally compressed pooled with blood in the cranial cavity about 300 ml." He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-10 with his opinion that the time of death is about 26 to 28 hours prior to autopsy and the cause of death is on account of shock and haemorrhage due to injury (crush injury) on head. .6. P.W.12, continuing with his investigation, recovered the bloodstained clothes of the deceased under the special report, Ex.P-21 from the Head Constable and sent the same to the Court under Form-95. On 4. 2006 he examined P.W.5 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 14. 2006, on receiving information as to the whereabouts of the accused, proceeded to Pelur Thakarakuppam junction at 9.00 a.m., and arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer and one Palani. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused, he recovered the Suzuki motor-cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-01-L-3318 under the mahazar. He also recovered the lungi of the accused in the presence of the same witnesses under the mahazar. He returned to the police station and remanded the accused to judicial custody. He examined P.Ws.4, 6 and other witnesses on 14. 2006 and recorded their statements. On 14. 2006 he examined P.W.6 and one Palani and recorded their statements. He also recovered the lungi of the accused in the presence of the same witnesses under the mahazar. He returned to the police station and remanded the accused to judicial custody. He examined P.Ws.4, 6 and other witnesses on 14. 2006 and recorded their statements. On 14. 2006 he examined P.W.6 and one Palani and recorded their statements. He examined the post-mortem doctor, P.W.8 on 24. 2006 and recorded his statement. He caused photographs of the scene of occurrence through P.W.10-photographer on 4. 2006. After the receipt of photographs on 20.1.2007, he examined P.W.10 and recorded his statement. He sent requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14. 2006 for recording the statements of P.Ws.1 & 2 under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He examined the Head Constable, P.W.11 and the other Head Constable on 24. 2006 and recorded their statements. He sent all the seized material objects for chemical examination through the Court. After receiving the chemical examination report and after obtaining the opinion of the post-mortem doctor as well the opinion of the Government Advocate and after completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC on 5. 2006. 7. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 21 exhibits and produced 8 material objects. 8. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against him, the accused denied each and every material and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was innocent. He neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side. The learned trial Judge, however, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him to death for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence the reference and the appeal. .9. To sustain the appeal, Mr.V.Sairam, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not come out with true version as to the occurrence and has suppressed the earlier complaint given by the Village Headman (Oor gounder), P.W.4 to the police immediately after the occurrence and the subsequent enquiries made by the police at the scene of occurrence even before Ex.P-1 was given by P.W.1. The learned counsel would submit that as the genesis or origin of the complaint-Ex.P-1 itself is doubtful, the learned trial Judge ought not to have found the accused guilty of the offence and ought not to have convicted and sentenced him to death. He would submit that there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1, who happened to be the eye-witness, and P.Ws.2 & 4, who came to the scene place immediately after the occurrence. The contradictions are vital and serious throwing unassailable doubt about the veracity of the entire prosecution case. He would also submit that while the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 a.m., on 4. 2006, the complaint, Ex.P-1 was given by P.W.1 only at 2.00 p.m., and there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the delay. In the absence of such explanation coupled with the fact that even before the said complaint the police party were present in the scene place immediately after the occurrence as spoken to by P.Ws.2 & 4, the prosecution case must fail. He would further submit that in any event, it is not a rarest of rare category warranting a death sentence. 10. On the other hand, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the motive for the offence has been spoken to by P.Ws.1 & 2. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the accused has specifically told both the witnesses that unless the deceased is done to death, he cannot marry P.W.1 and only because of the same, the accused had murdered the deceased. He would submit that the evidence of P.W.1, who was in the scene of occurrence, is categorical that at 6.00 a.m., on 4. 2006, the accused came into the house with a stone, M.O.1 and threw the same on the head of the deceased and thereafter ran away from that place. Her evidence is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, as she has also spoken that on hearing the shouting of P.W.1 after the occurrence, she rushed to that place and came to know that the deceased was murdered by the accused. The above version of P.W.2 is corroborated by yet another witness, P.W.4. Her evidence is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, as she has also spoken that on hearing the shouting of P.W.1 after the occurrence, she rushed to that place and came to know that the deceased was murdered by the accused. The above version of P.W.2 is corroborated by yet another witness, P.W.4. He would also submit that the evidence of P.W.8, the post-mortem doctor who has issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-10 is also to the effect that the injury sustained by the deceased could have been caused by a stone, M.O.1 and the cause of death is on account of shock and haemorrhage due to injury (crush injury) on the head. He would further submit that the seizure of M.O.6, bloodstained lungi of the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer. He would further submit that the seizure of M.O.2, shirt, M.O.3, banian and M.O.1, stone from the scene of occurrence contained the bloodgroup B of the deceased and therefore, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the accused in the crime. He would submit that it is a case of brutal murder by the accused in throwing a stone on the head of the deceased, who was sleeping at the time of occurrence and therefore the learned trial Judge has rightly awarded the death sentence. 11. We have carefully considered the contentions made on either side and perused the entire materials including the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Keeping in mind the materials in its entirety, let us consider as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused. 12. As far as the motive is concerned, P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had earlier married P.W.2 and thereafter, had married her. After the marriage with the deceased, P.W.1 and the accused developed illicit intimacy. When the accused wanted P.W.1 to marry him, she refused by stating that she wanted to live only with her husband namely, the deceased. It is her statement that on hearing the above from P.W.1, the accused told her that unless he kills the deceased, he cannot marry P.W.1. P.W.2 has also stated that P.W.1 and the accused had illicit intimacy even after the marriage between P.W.1 and the deceased. It is her statement that on hearing the above from P.W.1, the accused told her that unless he kills the deceased, he cannot marry P.W.1. P.W.2 has also stated that P.W.1 and the accused had illicit intimacy even after the marriage between P.W.1 and the deceased. She has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that when the accused insisted P.W.1 to marry him, she refused and therefore the accused was saying that unless he kills the deceased, he cannot marry P.W.1. By the above evidence, the prosecution has established the motive. 13. Though P.Ws.1 & 2 have spoken about the motive, as motive is a double-edged weapon, we must consider the same with utmost care and with reference to the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 in its entirety on other aspects. The Apex Court in the judgment in State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh and others ( 2003 (3) SCC 153 ) has held that motive cannot take the place of proof, as it can merely create only a suspicion. In the judgment in Shivraj Baburoy Jadav and others v. State of Karnataka ( 2003 (6) SCC 392 ), the Apex Court has held that motive would not play an important role when the prosecution case is based on acceptable other evidence. The Court must be cautious while considering the evidence relating to the motive, as it is a double-edged weapon and even if proved or established, it affords a key to scan the evidence in that perspective and has satisfactory circumstance of corroboration only. In fact, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive in every case and the motive could assume greater importance only in case of circumstantial evidence. If the evidence of the other witnesses are found to be truthful, the motive must assume only a secondary role. 14. As far as the submission as to the genesis or origin of the complaint-Ex.P-1 is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,3,4 & 12 shall be considered. According to P.W.1, the incident took place at about 6.00 a.m., on the fateful day and thereafter, she and her uncle went to Tirupattur Taluk Police Station and lodged the complaint-Ex.P-1 at about 2. 00 p.m., to P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, which was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Ex.P-18. According to P.W.1, the incident took place at about 6.00 a.m., on the fateful day and thereafter, she and her uncle went to Tirupattur Taluk Police Station and lodged the complaint-Ex.P-1 at about 2. 00 p.m., to P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, which was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Ex.P-18. On the other hand, she claimed her ignorance as to any other complaint given to the police at the earliest point of time by any other person before Ex.P-1 was given by her. 15. The evidence of P.W.2 is also categorical to the effect that immediately after the occurrence, the police was informed of the occurrence by the Village Headman (Oor gounder), P.W.4 and within one hour, the police party came to the scene place and obtained the thumb impression of P.W.1. As per her evidence, if the police was informed and the thumb impression was obtained from P.W.1 within one hour, it must be around 7.00 a.m., on 4. 2006. P.W.3 has also deposed that immediately after the occurrence, the police was informed and the police reached the scene of occurrence and obtained the thumb impression of P.W.1. 16. Surprisingly, P.W.12, the Investigating Officer has disowned receipt of any such information from the Village Headman (Oor gounder) and the police visited the scene of occurrence within one hour and obtained the thumb impression from P.W.1. The above contradictory stand of P.W.12 throws a serious doubt about the truthfulness and genesis of Ex.P-1, which was recorded by him at about 2.30 p.m., on 4. 2006 in the police station. 17. The prosecution is bound to establish the genesis or origin of the complaint beyond any reasonable doubt and if the Court entertains suspicion on the very genesis or origin of the complaint, the prosecution case must fail. Of course, the First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia and it is a piece of information only to set the law in motion. If that principle is applied to the facts of this case, the information received by the police through the Village Headman, P.W.4 immediately after the occurrence must be the first information report. Even according to P.Ws.2 & 3, on receipt of the said information, the police came to the scene of occurrence and within one hour obtained the thumb impression of P.W.1, the only eyewitness. Even according to P.Ws.2 & 3, on receipt of the said information, the police came to the scene of occurrence and within one hour obtained the thumb impression of P.W.1, the only eyewitness. If that be so, the prosecution should have put the case on trial only on the basis of such information given by the Village Headman. Strangely, P.W.4, the Village Headman (Oor gounder) has withheld the fact of informing the police immediately after the occurrence for the reasons best known to him. When the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3, who were present in the scene place immediately after the occurrence, is categorical in respect of the information given by P.W.4 to P.W.12, the suppression of the above fact by P.W.12 throws a serious doubt as to the veracity of his evidence. 18. Yet another important feature also to be borne in mind in this case is the inordinate and unexplained delay in giving the report, Ex.P-1 to the police. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 6.00 a.m., on 4. 2006 and the report was admittedly given to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police only at 2.00 p.m. The distance from the scene to the police station is 45 kms., as mentioned in Ex.P-18, First Information Report. The delay in First Information Report in this case assumes importance in view of the categorical version of P.Ws.2 and 3 to the effect that P.W.4, the Village Headman (Oor gounder) has already informed the police over the phone and the police came to the scene within one hour and thereafter, they have recorded the statement and obtained thumb impression from P.W.1. It is relevant to note that P.W.2 is the first wife of the deceased and she has no reason to give any wrong statement affecting the prosecution version. 19. Yet another vital aspect also which cannot be ignored in this case is the conduct of P.W.1. As admittedly the occurrence is said to have taken place at 6.00 a.m., and the deceased was alive till 10.00 a.m., and this version is also corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 3 as both of them categorically stated that the deceased died only at 10.00 a.m., and till such time P.Ws.1 to 3 have not raised their little finger to take steps to give any complaint to the police or to give any immediate treatment to the deceased. These infirmities and inconsistencies coupled with the version of P.Ws.2 and 3 that the information was immediately given to the police by P.W.4, the Village Headman over the phone and the police reached the scene within one hour and recorded the report and obtained thumb impression from P.W.1 clearly shows that such earlier report was suppressed by the prosecution and the present report, Ex.P-1 must have been substituted for the earlier one and as such, Ex.P-1 is nothing but a fabricated document. The Apex Court in the judgment in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala (1980 SCC (Crl.) 985) has held as follows:- "Once FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence, the entire prosecution case would collapse." The above said principle of law laid down by the Apex court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and the genesis or origin of the occurrence itself is suppressed by the prosecution throwing considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. 20. There is another vital and material contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 & 5 in respect of the manner in which the occurrence is said to have taken place. The evidence of P.W.1, the only eye-witness, is that at about 4.00 a.m., on 4. 2006, P.W.2, who was also sleeping along with P.W.1 and the deceased inside the house, went outside to watch a street play arranged in connection with a local festival. According to P.W.1, P.W.2 returned to the scene place on hearing her shouting at about 6.00 a.m. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that she came to the house at 6.00 a.m., only to carryout some domestic work and at that time only, she was informed about the accused throwing a stone on the head of the deceased. Only when she enquired as to who had thrown the stone on the deceased, she was informed by P.W.1 that the accused had thrown the stone on the head of the deceased. 21. P.W.1, in her evidence, has again stated that at about 5.00 a.m., on the fateful day, P.W.5, Kumar and one Karpagam came to the house and asked her to open the door. 21. P.W.1, in her evidence, has again stated that at about 5.00 a.m., on the fateful day, P.W.5, Kumar and one Karpagam came to the house and asked her to open the door. Accordingly, P.W.1 opened the door and, after P.W.5 and Karpagam left the pillow and mat inside the house, left the place. Thereafter, she closed the door and went to sleep only to see at 6.00 a.m., the accused came with a stone and threw the same on the head of the deceased. Per contra, the evidence of P.W.2 is that when she came to the house at 6.00 a.m., only to do her domestic work, she saw the accused throwing a stone on the head of the deceased and she has never spoken that she came to the house only after hearing the shouting of P.W.1. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.5 is that even when he and his wife Karpagam went to the house of P.W.1 to leave the pillow and mat, the door was open. It is his further evidence that after he left the pillow and mat inside the house, he closed the door and went away. He has not spoken anything about P.W.1 either closing or locking the door. This contradiction throws a serious doubt about the version of P.W.1 as to the manner in which the occurrence is said to have taken place and consequently the involvement of the accused in this case. 22. There is yet another material contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 as to the accused throwing a stone on the head of the deceased. According to P.W.1, P.W.2 came to the scene place only after hearing her shouting after the occurrence and the accused fled from that place. Though P.W.2 has also claimed that she came to the house at 6.00 a.m., to do her domestic work, she saw the accused throwing a stone on the head of the deceased, which is not the case of P.W.1 herself. Even in chief examination, while at one place, P.W.2 claimed that she came to the place of occurrence at 6.00 a.m., to attend to her domestic work she saw the accused throwing a stone on the head of the deceased, but in another place, she has stated that she was only informed by P.W.1 that the accused threw a stone on the deceased. Hence she is not definite and categorical as to the occurrence as such. .23. There is yet another fatal contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 as to the presence of the accused in the house of P.W.1. It is the categorical evidence of P.W.5 that before the accused threw a stone on the head of the deceased, he switched on the radio and raised its volume so that others could not hear the shouting of the deceased. On the other hand, P.W.1 has not whispered anything about the accused switching on the radio and raised its voice, as it is her categorical evidence that when the accused knocked the door that was closed, she opened the door and found the accused having a stone, M.O.1 in his hands and threw it on the head of the deceased. In view of the above evidence of P.W.5, the version of P.W.1 as to the occurrence itself is doubtful as it creates suspicion in the mind of the Court. Even assuming that there was no earlier information to the police immediately after the occurrence at 6.00 a.m., on 14. 2006, the complaint was lodged at 2.00 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution that after hearing the shouting of P.W.1, the other witnesses namely, P.Ws.2,3 & 4 came to the scene and none of them have gone to the police station to lodge the complaint immediately till 2.00 p.m. The conduct of P.W.1 and others is also highly doubtful inasmuch as the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 a.m., and the deceased died only at 10.00 a.m., i.e., after four hours and nobody had cared to take him to the hospital even to give medical assistance even though number of persons assembled in the scene of occurrence. 24. In the above background, one more aspect also assumes importance namely, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused had thrown the M.O.1 stone standing six feet away from the deceased and crushed his head. It must be noticed that as per Ex.P-3, the recovery mahazar, the stone was measuring 32 cms length x 16 cms breadth x 21 cms height and it will be highly impossible for a person to throw such a big stone on the head of the deceased that too, standing six feet away from him. 25. It must be noticed that as per Ex.P-3, the recovery mahazar, the stone was measuring 32 cms length x 16 cms breadth x 21 cms height and it will be highly impossible for a person to throw such a big stone on the head of the deceased that too, standing six feet away from him. 25. The maxim that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal case. The criminal law jurisprudence does not recognise the presumption of guilt by the accused and if the Court entertains a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution case and particularly, the very genesis or origin of the first information report, the benefit of innocence must go to the accused. It is an important factor that in every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of the accused person is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and when such reasonable doubts are pleaded, they should ordinarily be accepted, unless the circumstances are otherwise. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the first information received by the Investigating Officer from the Village Headman (Oor gounder) and the investigation was commenced immediately thereafter even before the complaint said to have been given by P.W.1, have been suppressed only to draw an inference that the complaint-Ex.P-1 is not genuine and is only fabricated. .26. So far as the injuries are concerned, according to P.W.1, the accused threw a stone on the head of the deceased and thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene place. The same is also spoken to by the post-mortem doctor, P.W.8 and who has issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-10 to the effect of one injury on the head. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.12, the Investigating Officer is that at the time of inquest, he noticed three injuries on the deceased namely, one in the eyes and the other on the right forehead and the third on the leg of the deceased. But there is absolutely no explanation as to the three injuries as spoken to by him, throwing a serious doubt about the very investigation as to the nature of injuries even when the medical evidence is to the effect that there was only one head injury. But there is absolutely no explanation as to the three injuries as spoken to by him, throwing a serious doubt about the very investigation as to the nature of injuries even when the medical evidence is to the effect that there was only one head injury. P.W.12 has also categorically stated that the occurrence could not have been committed by one single person in the following words namely, TAMIL. 27. Further, the complaint-Ex.P-1 contains the name of the accused and he was arrested at 9.00 a.m., on 14. 2006 after four days of the occurrence and the M.O.6, lungi was recovered from the deceased at the time of arrest. Admittedly, M.O.6, lungi contains the blood group B, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. It is highly doubtful as to whether the accused who had committed the murder would dare to wear the very same lungi which he wore at the time of occurrence for four days continuously without even making any attempt to conceal the same. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.6 itself throws a serious doubt as to the prosecution version. 28. As already pointed out, P.W.1, who is the solitary eye-witness, has not come forward with clear and cogent version and her evidence not at all inspires our confidence and as such, we are of the view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.1. 29. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are unsustainable. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. The reference is rejected.