Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 10.06.2004 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, in Special S.C.No.5 of 2003 acquitting the sole accused, Natarajan, for the alleged offence under Sections 324 IPC (two counts), 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"). 2. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows: (i) P.W.1 is the uncle of P.Ws.2 to 4 ; P.W.5 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased and all are belonging to Scheduled Caste (Adidravidar) and the accused belongs to Most Backward Community, namely, Vanniyar. (ii) The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on 210. 2002 at about 07.15 p.m. at Gidangu Street, Odugathur, in front of Kamalan Clinic. On the fateful day of occurrence, P.W.3 parked his cycle and he was taking tea from Settu Tea Stall. At that time, the accused came there in a Hero Honda Motorbike and dashed the cycle of P.W.3 which resulted in a quarrel between them. The accused beat P.W.3 with his hand and P.W.3 went and informed his uncle/P.W.1 and other relatives, namely, P.Ws.2, 4 and the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased along with P.Ws.1 to 4 rushed to the scene of occurrence and questioned the conduct of the accused beating P.W.3. The accused abused them by using their community name and immediately beat P.W.1 with an iron rod, M.O.4 on his chin and on his right leg. When P.W.2 intervened, the accused also beat him on his head with iron rod, M.O.4. The deceased at that time caught hold of the accused on his backside and the accused kicked him on his chest, abdomen and on his private part with his leg. The accused also fisted the deceased by his hand on his face. The deceased swooned and fell down. (iii) The wife of P.W.1 and the mother of P.W.2 took the injured, P.Ws.1 and 2, to the Government Hospital. The deceased was taken to the hospital by one Moorthi and one Muniswami, brothers-in-law of the deceased. (iv) The Doctor, P.W.8, attached to the Government Hospital, Vellore, examined P.W.1 on 210. The deceased swooned and fell down. (iii) The wife of P.W.1 and the mother of P.W.2 took the injured, P.Ws.1 and 2, to the Government Hospital. The deceased was taken to the hospital by one Moorthi and one Muniswami, brothers-in-law of the deceased. (iv) The Doctor, P.W.8, attached to the Government Hospital, Vellore, examined P.W.1 on 210. 2002 at 8.15 p.m. and found the following injuries on P.W.1, as per Ex.P.6, Accident Register : (1) Punctured wound (n.c.) below the chin 3 X 3 X 3 c.m. (2) Swelling over right forearm. 2 X 2 c.m. (3) C/o. pain on writs. (v) On the same day at 8.25 p.m., the Doctor, P.W.8, examined P.W.2 and found a cut injury on the parieto frontal region measuring 5 X 2 X 2 cm. Ex.P.7 is the Accident Register. (vi) On 210. 2002 at 2.00 a.m, the Doctor, P.W.8 examined the deceased, Venkatesan and found that the deceased already died. P.W.8 sent the death intimation, Ex.P.10, to the police. (vii) P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, received the message over the phone from the Government Hospital, Vellore, at 3.00 a.m. on 210. 2002 and reached the Government Hospital at 4.00 a.m. He examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement under Ex.P.1, the report. He registered the case in Cr.No.632 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and Ex.P.18 is the Express First Information Report. He sent the Express First Information Report, Ex.P.18, to the Court and to the higher police officials. (viii) P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, also recorded a statement from the accused on the same day under Ex.P.17 and registered the First Information Report in Crime NO.633 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. It is stated by the accused that he was attacked by P.Ws.1 to 3 and he was caught hold by the deceased. It is further stated by the accused that he has kicked the deceased and relieved himself from the deceased and thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital by one Sekar. (ix) P.W.12, took up investigation in this case and went to the scene of occurrence, at 6.15 a.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. P.W.12 again went to the hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 8.15 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. Ex.P.21 is the inquest report. (ix) P.W.12, took up investigation in this case and went to the scene of occurrence, at 6.15 a.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. P.W.12 again went to the hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 8.15 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. Ex.P.21 is the inquest report. During inquest he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and others and recorded their statements. He sent the body for post-mortem along with the requisition, Ex.P.15, through P.W.10, Head Constable. (x) The Doctor, P.W.11, conducted post-mortem on 210. 2002 at 11.30 a.m. and found the following injuries : External Injuries : (1) An abrasion 3 cm X 1/2 cm black in colour just lateral to left eye. (2) An abrasion 3 cm X 1 cm black in colour over left side of forehead. Internal Examination : Abdomen uniform, Opening of Thorax fracture Ribs A 56 left. Thoracic cavity contains about 200 ml of fluid blood. Heart 290 gms. Chambers contain blood clots and fluid and blood. Lungs : left 420 gms Right 510 gms 1) Lacerated injury 4 cm X 3 cm X 2 cm deep over left upper lobe. 2) A lacerated injury 3 cm X 2 cm X 2 cm deep over left lower lobe. Hyoid bone : Intact. Stomach: contains partially digested food material. Liver Spleen Kidneys Brain – C.S.Pale. Small Intestine empty. Large intestine contain feacal matter and gas. Bladder empty. Head Extravasation of blood beneath the scalp. Spinal column : Normal. Spinal cord: Intact." Ex.P.16 is the Post-mortem certificate. The Doctor, P.W.11 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained about 11 to 17 hours prior to commencement of post-mortem examination. (xi) P.W.12, in continuation of his investigation, recovered bloodstained cloths, M.Os.1 to 3, from P.Ws.1 and 2. He arrested the accused on 210. 2002 at 4.00 p.m. near the bus stand at Anaikattu. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused under Ex.P.3, P.W.12 recovered M.O.4, iron rod, under Ex.P.4. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.12 also recovered M.Os.5 to 7 which were seized from the body of the deceased and sent the material objects to the Magistrate Court. He referred the case registered on the basis of the report given by the accused as mistake of fact under Ex.P.22, the report. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.12 also recovered M.Os.5 to 7 which were seized from the body of the deceased and sent the material objects to the Magistrate Court. He referred the case registered on the basis of the report given by the accused as mistake of fact under Ex.P.22, the report. On 210. 2002, he recorded further statements from P.Ws.1 and 2. He received post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.16 and also examined the Doctor, P.W.8, who has treated P.Ws.1 and 2 and received the Accident Registers, Exs.P.6 and 7. On 29.01.2003, he has examined the Tahsildar, P.W.9 in respect of the community of the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 and received Exs.P.11 to 13, the community certificates, in which it is stated that they belong to Adidravidar community. The community Certificate of the accused is marked as Ex.P.23. (xii) P.W.13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up further investigation as the offence under the SC/ST Act has also been registered against the accused. P.W.13 recorded further statements from P.Ws.1 to 4 and 7 and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed the charge sheet on 16.02.2003 against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 13, filed Exs.P.1 to P.23 besides marking M.Os.1 to 7. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the accused has come forward with the version of total denial. The accused has chosen to examine one defence witness, namely, D.W.1, Dr.Ramesh. It is stated by D.W.1 that on 210. 2002 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused came with his daughter for treatment and after taking treatment the accused left out of the clinic and thereafter, he heard some noise and came out from the clinic and found 40-50 persons gathered there and the accused ran away from there along with his child. 5. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the learned trial Judge has not assigned any valid reasons for acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge overlooked the evidence available on record through the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. 5. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the learned trial Judge has not assigned any valid reasons for acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge overlooked the evidence available on record through the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that Ex.P.1, report, given by P.W.1 is a genuine document and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge holding that Ex.P.1 is a fabricated document are contrary to the materials available on record. It is contended that though there are certain inconsistencies and contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the eyewitnesses, those inconsistencies are very trivial and immaterial and not affected the main case of the prosecution implicating the accused/respondent. It is submitted that the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, have come forward with consistent version in respect of the overt acts alleged against the accused regarding the attack on the deceased as well as the injured eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of they sustaining injuries at the hands of the accused is also corroborated by the medical evidence as the Doctor, P.W.8, stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 could have sustained injuries in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 6. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, on the other hand, contended that the learned trial Judge has assigned valid reasons based on the materials available on record for acquitting the accused. It is submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused would further contend that the evidence of P.W.1 makes it crystal clear that Ex.P.1 is a fabricated document as he has categorically admitted that P.W.12 obtained his signature in two blank papers which are marked as Exs.P.1 and 2. It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.2 is also unreliable and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.12 recorded a statement from both and obtained their signatures even before the admission of the deceased in the hospital and those earlier reports were suppressed by the prosecution. It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.2 is also unreliable and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.12 recorded a statement from both and obtained their signatures even before the admission of the deceased in the hospital and those earlier reports were suppressed by the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that P.W.2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was examined by P.W.12 at 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and at 11.00 a.m. on the next day. The learned counsel would further contend that the evidence of other eyewitnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4 also suffers from contradictions in material particulars. 7. It is contended that the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are brother-in-law and wife of the deceased, is also not helpful to advance the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected their evidence as their evidence is artificial and unbelievable. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused would also contend that even the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the accused is falsified by the medical evidence as the injuries sustained by them show a punctured wound and a cut injury which could not have been caused by M.O.4 as per the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.8. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused by assigning clear and categorical reasons. 8. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the materials available on record and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of entire materials available on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. 10. The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. The fact remains that P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and uncle of P.Ws.2 to 4 and as such all the eye-witnesses are closely related to each other and also to the deceased and as such their evidence has to be necessarily scrutinized with great care and caution. 11. The fact remains that P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and uncle of P.Ws.2 to 4 and as such all the eye-witnesses are closely related to each other and also to the deceased and as such their evidence has to be necessarily scrutinized with great care and caution. 11. At the outset, we are constrained to state that the learned trial Judge has given categorical reasons for rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. It is seen that the learned trial Judge has assigned valid reasons for acquitting the accused which are based on the materials available on record. It is seen that the learned trail Judge has acquitted the accused on the following grounds : 1) Ex.P.1, the report, given by P.W.1 is fabricated one as it is seen from the perusal of the first page of Ex.P.1 that the writings are in normal manner, whereas in second page, it is in congested manner which shows that Ex.P.1 could have been written in a signed paper. P.W.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that P.W.12 obtained his signatures in two blank white papers and those papers are marked as Exs.P.1 and 2. 2) P.W.1 admitted that he has no knowledge as to how the deceased sustained injuries. P.W.1 also stated that even before the body of the deceased reached the hospital, he was examined by P.W.12, the Inspector of Police. If really P.W.1 witnessed the occurrence along with P.W.2, he could have very well accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable. 3) There are material contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the alleged injured eye-witnesses. 4) The evidence of other eye-witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4, are also suffers from bundle of contradictions and their evidence further contradicted by the medical evidence. 5) The earlier report given by P.W.1 was suppressed as P.W.1 admitted that he was examined by the Inspector of Police thrice after the death of the deceased and he has also signed two blank papers as early as at 9.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence and as such the earlier report was burked. 6) P.Ws.1 to 6 are related to the deceased and they are belonging to the same community and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. 7) The evidence of P.W.5, brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.6, wife of the deceased is also unreliable. 6) P.Ws.1 to 6 are related to the deceased and they are belonging to the same community and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. 7) The evidence of P.W.5, brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.6, wife of the deceased is also unreliable. 8) The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of injuries said to have been caused by the accused is also falsified by the medical evidence as there is no corresponding injuries said to have been caused by M.O.4. P.W.1 stated to the Doctor, as per the Accident Register, Ex.P.6, that he was assaulted by two known persons. The Doctor, P.W.8, found a punctured wound on P.W.1 on the chin and a cut injury on the parieto frontal region on P.W.2 which could not have been caused by M.O.4, iron rod, and as per the admission of the doctor, P.W.8, that only a sharp-edged weapon can cause the said injuries. 12. It is relevant to refer a decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 wherein the Honble Apex Court has held as follows : ".... As a practical proposition, in an appeal against acquittal, it is always necessary that the reasons given by the trial Court for recording an acquittal should be examined by the High Court. If the conclusions of the trial Court are not based upon any evidence of they are such as no reasonable body of men, properly instructed in law, can reach, on the evidence, or they are so palpably wrong as to shock the sense of justice, the High Court will be justified in taking a contrary view by giving its own reasons. It is not enough that it is just possible for the High Court to take a contrary view. While interfering with acquittal the judgment of the High Court should demonstrate clearly the unworthiness of the conclusions of the trial Court having regard to all the relevant evidence in record." 13. In yet another decision in State of Karnataka V. K.Gopalakrishna reported in 2005 (9) SCC 291 the Honble Apex Court has held as follows : "17. .... If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. .... If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffer from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the appellate court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal." 14. As we have already pointed out, a perusal of the evidence available on record through P.Ws.1 to 4, eye-witnesses, and other evidence makes it crystal clear that the learned trial Judge based the reasons on the basis of the materials available on record. The first and foremost ground for rejection of the prosecution case, as far as we are concerned, is to the effect that Ex.P.1 is not a genuine document and the same is a fabricated one. P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he does not aware as to how the deceased died and he went to the extent of stating that even before the admission of the deceased in the hospital he was examined by the Inspector, P.W.12 and P.W.12 obtained his signature in two blank papers and those papers were filled up and subsequently marked as Exs.P.1 and P.2. The undisputed fact remains that P.Ws.1 and 2, the so-called injured eye-witnesses, have been examined by the Doctor, P.W.8 on 210. 2002 at 8.15 p.m. and at 8.25 p.m. respectively and the deceased was examined by the Doctor only during mid night i.e., on 210. 2002 at 2.00 a.m. and the deceased was brought by his brothers-in-law, namely, one Munusamy and Moorthi. If P.Ws.1 and 2 have sustained injuries at the hands of the accused at the time of occurrence, wherein the deceased also sustained injuries, they could have accompanied the deceased to the hospital together. These infirmities and inherent improbabilities coupled with the admission of P.W.1 that P.W.12 obtained his signature in two blank papers, which were subsequently marked as Exs.P.1 and 2, make it crystal clear that Ex.P.1 is nothing but a fabricated document. 15. These infirmities and inherent improbabilities coupled with the admission of P.W.1 that P.W.12 obtained his signature in two blank papers, which were subsequently marked as Exs.P.1 and 2, make it crystal clear that Ex.P.1 is nothing but a fabricated document. 15. The Honble Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti V. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1980 SC 636 has held that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the First Information Report is held to be fabricated. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the First Information Report, Ex.P.1, is a fabricated document and as such the entire prosecution case would collapse on this sole ground. 16. The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the alleged eye-witnesses, on the other ground of material contradictions between their evidence. Yet another vital reason given by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the prosecution case is that the prosecution has suppressed the earlier reports recorded from P.Ws.1 and 2. It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that even before the deceased was brought to the hospital both of them have been admitted in the hospital and they have been examined by P.W.12, the Inspector of Police and it is the categorical version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that P.W.12 recorded their statements and obtained their signatures, but the fact remains that the prosecution has suppressed those reports recorded from P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the night of the date of occurrence, i.e. on 210. 2002 as it is seen that Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.12 at 4.00 a.m. on 210. 2002. This vital factor and serious infirmity in the prosecution case also throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version and the learned trial Judge has also rightly rejected the prosecution case on the ground of suppression of earlier reports. 17. It is pertinent to be noted that even the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the accused is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. It is the categorical version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they have attacked by the accused with an iron rod, M.O.4. 17. It is pertinent to be noted that even the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the accused is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. It is the categorical version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they have attacked by the accused with an iron rod, M.O.4. But curiously P.W.1 sustained a punctured wound on the chin and P.W.2 suffered a cut injury and both the injuries could not have been caused by an iron rod, as per the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.8. It is needless to state that a punctured would and a cut injury could have caused only by a sharp-edged weapon and M.O.4 is not a sharp-edged weapon. Added to this infirmity, it is seen that P.W.1 at the earliest point of time stated to the Doctor that he was assaulted by two known persons. Therefore, even on this ground, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not inspire the confidence of the Court. 18. As rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge that the evidence of P.W.5, brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.6 wife of the deceased, also suffers from infirmities and inconsistencies. It is seen that P.W.6, wife of the deceased, stated that the deceased was chatting with her normally and he became unconscious suddenly. The fact remains that both, P.Ws.5 and 6 have not accompanied with the deceased to the hospital and their conduct is quite unnatural and throws serious doubt about their version. 19. Yet another reason assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused is that the accused also sustained injuries as per the Accident Register, Ex.P.8 and he has also given a statement under Ex.P.17. It is seen that there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution for the injuries sustained by the accused. Therefore, this Court is also of the considered view that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 20. It is seen that there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution for the injuries sustained by the accused. Therefore, this Court is also of the considered view that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 20. Therefore, considering the evidence placed by the prosecution and testing the same in the light of the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court as highlighted above, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Court below are not unreasonable or perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record or suffer from serious illegality or misreading the evidence warranting the interference of this Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.