Judgment :- As both appeals arise out of a common Judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, dated 28.01.2005 in S.C.No.339 of 2002, they are taken up together for disposal by this common Judgment. 2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.210 of 2005, who was tried as A1 was found guilty under Sections 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As the major punishment is imposed for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., learned trial Judge has not imposed separate sentence for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. The appellant in Crl.A.No.225 of 2005, who was tried as A2 was found guilty under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. The veracity of the said Judgment is put in issue in both of these appeals. For the sake of convenient we have referred the appellants as A1 and A2 as shown before the Court below: a) P.W.1 by name Kasthuri Ammal and the deceased by name Kothandarama Naidu are husband and wife. One Akulammal, who is the uncles daughter of the deceased possessed some wealth. It appears the said Akulammal came and lived with both the deceased and P.W.1. Some of the properties were bequeathed in favour of the deceased and P.W.1 by the said Akulammal. One Dhananjeyan who is the pangali of the said Akulammal claimed right over the property and according to the prosecution there was misunderstanding between both the deceased and the said Dhananjeyan and his sons Rajendran and Munirathinam over the execution of the same by Akulammal in favour of the deceased and P.W.1. A Panchayat was also held and a Civil case was also filed regarding the properties. b) There was a dispute between the deceased and the family of the said Dhananjeyan, who was examined as P.W.11 and A1 and A2 intervened and mediated for settlement. It appears some settlement was arrived at whereby a sum of Rs.30,000/- should be paid to A1 and A2 by the deceased. b) There was a dispute between the deceased and the family of the said Dhananjeyan, who was examined as P.W.11 and A1 and A2 intervened and mediated for settlement. It appears some settlement was arrived at whereby a sum of Rs.30,000/- should be paid to A1 and A2 by the deceased. On 01.08.2001 at about 11.00 p.m., when both P.W.1 and the deceased went to sleep, A1 and A2 came to the house of deceased viz., the scene of occurrence and A2 instigated A1 to cut the deceased and A1 cut the deceased twice on his head with knife. On hearing the cry from the deceased, P.W.1 got up and shouted. She was also threatened by A1 that if she informed the occurrence to anybody she would also face the same fate. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambur Police Station, which was registered in Cr.No.480 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.P.17. P.W.18 the Sub-Inspector of Police made arrangements to send the F.I.R. to the Magistrate concerned and submitted the case file to P.w.19 for investigation. P.W.19, the In-charge Inspector of Police of Ambur Police Station, on 8. 2001 took up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.18, Observation Mahazar. He also made arrangement to take photographs of the scene of occurrence and conducted Inquest in the presence of Panchatdars He prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.19) and sent the body of the deceased for Post Mortem, through Head Constable Mr.Arumugam. P.W.19 recovered blood stained human hair, blood stained Beedi and Match box and one pair of cheppals from the scene of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses and sent the same to the Court under Form 95. Subsequnetly, P.W.21, Inspector of Police, Ambur Police Station has conducted further investigation in this case and examined witnesses. He arrested both the accused on 8. 2001 and recorded their confession statements in the presence of the witnesses. As per the admissible portions of confession Statements of both the accused (Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.21), P.W.21 recovered the knife, which was used for the offence, in the presence of witnesses. He also sent the seized properties for chemical examination through Court and received the reports from the laboratory. After completion of investigation, P.W.21 filed Charge Sheet against both the accused on 2. He also sent the seized properties for chemical examination through Court and received the reports from the laboratory. After completion of investigation, P.W.21 filed Charge Sheet against both the accused on 2. 2002 for the offences under Sections 302 and 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. 5. Before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses, marked 22 Exhibits and produced 9 Material Objects. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have stated that the evidence is false. However, believing the case of the prosecution the learned Judge found both the accused guilty and sentenced them as stated earlier. 6. Mr.S. Ashok kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr.A.No.210 of 2005 has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution basically rests only on the evidence of P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and who has also happened to be an eye witness. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unreliable and not trustworthy and such evidence cannot be the basis for conviction. In support of the said submission, learned Senior Counsel would submit that P.W.1 is the author of Ex.P.1 complaint, which was given to the police just one hour fifteen minutes after the occurrence and in the said complaint P.W.1 has narrated the details as to the occurrence in extent. It is the specific complaint by P.W.1 that there was property dispute between the deceased and his pangalies viz., one Dhananjayan and his sons over the will executed by one Akulammal in favour of the deceased and P.W.1 and a Panchayat was also held and civil suits were also pending. Therefore, she has complained that on the date of occurrrence Dhananjayan and his sons came to the scene of occurrence and committed the murder. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the said complaint she has not whispered anything about the motive between the deceased and A1 in respect of the demand of a sum of Rs.30,000/- by A1 and A2 towards settling the dispute between the deceased and the said Dhananjayan family and the consequential refusal by the deceased to pay the said amount. P.W.1 has also not even indicated as to any of the suspicion over the appellant/A1 herein for the commission of the crime. P.W.1 has also not even indicated as to any of the suspicion over the appellant/A1 herein for the commission of the crime. But on the contrary the complaint specifically points out only the said Dhananjayan and his sons Rajendran and Munirathnam. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that subsequently when P.W.1 was examined and her statement was recorded by P.W.19 under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 8. 2001, she has implicated only the said Dhananjayan and Rajendran and has not stated anything about the involvement of the appellant/A1. However, after a period of two days that is on 8. 2001 when a statement was recorded from P.W.1 under Section161 Cr.P.C. by P.W.19 she has implicated both the accused for the first time. Thereafter, P.W.1 has implicated both the accused when she gave statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, P.W.10, on 21. 2002 and thereafter in the Court. In these circumstances the version of P.W.1 is highly unreliable and she has completely changed the scenery of occurrence not only the motive but also the implication of the accused. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the only explanation offered by P.W.1 is that she was threatened by A1 that if she revealed the occurrence to anybody she would also face the same fate. The said explanation is totally not acceptable in view of the fact that she was made to change her stand in between two days that on 8. 2001 and 8. 2001. Only to let the said Dhananjeyan and Rajendran who are Pangalies of the deceased fre, she has falsely implicated the accused stating that there was dispute over the payment of money by the deceased to the accused. He would also submit that the other witnesses who have been examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 have turned hostile and they did not support her evidence. 8. It is not the question of corroboration but it is the question as to whether in such circumstances the evidence of P.W.1 should be acceped or not. In this context, learned Senior Counsel would draw our attention to the evidence of P.Ws.2,3,4 and 5, who turned hostile. He would also submit that when P.W.6 speaks about the panchayat held between the deceased family and the family of Dhananjeyan and Rajendran, incidentally speaks to the fact that the deceased had told him about the demand of money by the accused. He would also submit that when P.W.6 speaks about the panchayat held between the deceased family and the family of Dhananjeyan and Rajendran, incidentally speaks to the fact that the deceased had told him about the demand of money by the accused. Yet another witness who speaks of the motive between the deceased and the accused is P.W.9. Both the witnesses also cannot be accepted in view of their contradictory stand taken, which could be seen from the evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.21 the Investigation Officers. Except the above witnesses, there is no other witness to speak about even the motive for the occurrence i.e., the demand of Rs.30,000/- by the accused and the refusal of the same by the deceased. Hence, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the conviction of the accused is not suffice by placing reliance solely on the evidence of P.W.1 and therefore, the Judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 9. We have also heard Mr.V.R. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He would submit that the conduct of P.W.1 in not implicating both the accused, at the very first opportunity when she gave Ex.P.1, complaint is quite natural. She being a lady, crossed 60 years of age and lost her husband in the occurrence and was left alone and she had to lodge a complaint. When actually A1 and A2 had inflicted injuries on the deceased she witnessed the same and she shouted. However, A1 had threatened her with dire consequences that if she revealed the occurrence to anybody she would also face the same fate. Hence, quite naturally, out of fear, she has not disclosed anything about the accused in the complaint and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Since her statement was recorded by P.W.19 immediately after the occurrence and complaint, she has given the very same version in 161 Cr.P.C. statement. However, after realising the mistake committed by her, in not implicating said Dhananjeyan and Rajendran, left the real accused, within a period two days i.e.,on 04.08.2001, she gave a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., implicating the real P.W.1 has implicated the real assailants namely the accused. The explanation is acceptable as it is natural. However, after realising the mistake committed by her, in not implicating said Dhananjeyan and Rajendran, left the real accused, within a period two days i.e.,on 04.08.2001, she gave a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., implicating the real P.W.1 has implicated the real assailants namely the accused. The explanation is acceptable as it is natural. In view of the above circumstances, if the above explanation of P.W.1 is acceptable, then her evidence as to implication of the accused should be accepted keeping in mind that she has not only given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to P.W.21 on 8. 2001 but also to P.W.10, the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 24.01.2002. In her evidence P.W.1 has implicated both the accused, particularly the abetment by A2 and causing head injuries by A1. The motive aspect is also spoken to by P.W.6 and P.W.9. The recovery of M.O.1, the knife was also made at the instance of the admissible portion of the confession statement recorded from the accused. Hence, the learned Judge was right in holding that both the accused were found guilty and consequently the sentenced require no interference. 10. We have given our anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions. 11. The F.I.R. is only an intimation to the police set the law in motion. Of course, it need not contain any elaborate statement, particularly as to the motive as well as the specific overt act against the accused. Based on the said intimation as to the commission of the offence, an officer, who takes cognizance of the complaint, has to investigate and find out the real assailants. However, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, if the F.I.R. itself is to be disbelieved and the prosecution case still rests on the author of the F.I.R. who comes with an entirely different story to the Court, a deep consideration may require. 12. As much has been argued on the entire contradictory stand taken by P.W.1 while she gave Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.18 and while she deposed before the Court, we are inclined to refer the complaint in detail. In the complaint P.W.1 has referred to the circumstances under which both herself and the deceased, her husband came to own and possess much extent of lands belonging to one Akulammal. In the complaint P.W.1 has referred to the circumstances under which both herself and the deceased, her husband came to own and possess much extent of lands belonging to one Akulammal. It is not in dispute that Dhananjeyan and Rajendran also happen to be the Pangalies and they can also claim the right over the property, which belongs to the said Akulammal. Therefore, she has referred as to the misunderstanding between the two families and the consequent Panchayat that was held to resolve the dispute. It was also agreed between the two families for payment of a sum of Rs.45,000/-by the deceased to those Pangalies, which amount in fact was also paid. She has also referred in the complaint that even after the settlement of the above amount, Dhananjeyan and Rajendran interfered in the possession of the lands by the deceased and in fact when such an attempt was made, the deceased questioned them and he was threatened by them with dire consequences by further saying that the deceased would be murdered. She has not stopped with that in the complaint and she proceeded to state that with these back ground when herself and the deceased were sleeping on the fateful day of the occurrence, two persons came and one person instigated the other to cut the deceased for which the other person, on such instigation, has cut the deceased on his head. After narrating the above, she proceeded to state that necessary action must be taken against the two individuals, specifically against the said Dhananjeyan and Rajendran and also Munirathinam Naidu, the father of Dhananjeyan. She has specifically stated that the above persons alone murdered her husband. However, in the evidence she has completely give a go-by to the entire in the compalint and stated that the assailants were theaccused and the motive was the refusal by the deceased to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is said to have been agreed to be paid for the mediation done by the accused to resolve the dispute between the two families. The explanation is that out of fear she has not referred to the names of the accused. How far the explanation could be accepted is the further question to be considered by this Court. The explanation is that out of fear she has not referred to the names of the accused. How far the explanation could be accepted is the further question to be considered by this Court. If the explanation is true, then P.W.1 need not refer the entire story as to how she and her husband inherited certain properties from Akulammal by way of will and she need not narrate the misunderstanding between the two families and the consequential Panchayat held and the decision of the Panchayat for a payment of Rs.45,000/-by the deceased to Dhananjeyan and Rajendran (Pankalies) and the payment of such amount. Even after the payment, both Dhananjeyan and rajendren interfered and offered the possession of the property and consequently threatened the deceased. There is also no occasion to request the police to take action against the specific individuals by that they were the assailants. She was a fear over the accused and threat. She could have merely stating that the deceased was murdered by to individuals without even referred to the names of accused or for that matter the names of Dhananajeyan and Rajendran and Munirathinam Naidu and the dispute between two family members which is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of the complaint. Further, for the first time she has implicated the accused by giving an entirely different story and also giving a go-by to the earlier complaint in toto on 8. 2001. The explanation can also be considered with reference to the version that immediately after the occurrence she had informed the same to P.W.9. .P.W.9 is none other than the forster-son of P.W.1 and deceased. There is absolutely no reasons to stress the names of the assailants to P.W.9. In fact, while she was questioned in the cross examination she has specifically stated that she did not mention any names of assailants. Though she may have fear to mention the names of the accused in the complaint, nothing prevented her to inform her forsters son as to the name of the accused. This evidence of not referring to the names of the accused is also corroborated by P.W.9. In his evidence P.W.9 has stated that P.W.1 has not informed the names of the assailants except the fact that the deceased was murdered. Further P.W.9 has stated that he wasinformed by P.W.1 as to the commission of murder by some unknown persons. This evidence of not referring to the names of the accused is also corroborated by P.W.9. In his evidence P.W.9 has stated that P.W.1 has not informed the names of the assailants except the fact that the deceased was murdered. Further P.W.9 has stated that he wasinformed by P.W.1 as to the commission of murder by some unknown persons. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the explanation, as the said explanation smacks serious doubt and has been made only for the purpose of implicating the accused, as P.W.1 had taken two days time in between 8. 2001 and 8. 2001 to change the entire story as to the occurrence. 13. Though much was argued as to the number of contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses and more particularly with regard to the evidence of P.Ws.19 and 21, we are not inclined to go into the contradictions for the simple reason we are not inclined to believe the evidence of P.W.1 in its entirety in implicating A1 and A2 in this case by taking into consideration of her initial complaint viz., Ex.P.1. But we are affirm to refer one more fact viz., even in the complaint all that she has attributed against A2 is that he stabbed the deceased on his chest. This version is not corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.17, the Post Mortem Doctor had issued Ex.P.16, Post Mortem Certificate, wherein he specified the following external injuries. 1.Incised wound on the right side of the neck 7 cm X ½ cm X ½ cm. 2.Incised wound on the skull 3 cm above the left ear on the parietal area of skull 7cm X 3 cm X Deep to the bone. Bone is also broken. The cause of the death as opined by the Doctor is that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and vital organ viz., Brain. The Doctor has not found any injury on the chest. It is also relevant to point out that it is the case of P.W.1 that after the assailants stabbed the deceased on the chest, blood oozed out from the chest. But in the medical evidence nothing has been indicated to corroborate the above version. The Doctor has not found any injury on the chest. It is also relevant to point out that it is the case of P.W.1 that after the assailants stabbed the deceased on the chest, blood oozed out from the chest. But in the medical evidence nothing has been indicated to corroborate the above version. One more aspect is that even in Ex.P.1 Complaint, P.W.1 has stated that P.W.2 had come to the scene of occurrence immediately on hearing the noise, but unforturnately P.W.2 has turned hostile. 14. Leaned Additional Public Prosecutor has also strongly relied on the recovery for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of P.W.1. It is well settled in law that mere recovery cannot stand as a substantive piece of evidence and it can be only considered as corroborative piece of evidence. As we have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 in its entirety, the question of recovery corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 does not arise. 15. On a detailed discussion and consideration of the entire materials on record we are of the considered view that the investigation has not been conducted to find out the real culprit or the assailants in this case. The entire evidence of P.W.1 gives suspicion and raises serious doubts in the minds of the court to hold that A1 and A2 are the real offenders requiring the conviction and sentence. In view of the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, whenever a doubt is entertained as to the prosecution case and particularly in this case the only evidence of P.W.1 is doubted by us, the benefit should go only to the accused. 16. In view of the above principle, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt and accordingly both the accused are entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and hence the Judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, made in S.C.No.330 of 2002 dated 21. 2005 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 17. It is stated that the accused have paid the fine amount. They are entitled to refund of the same.