Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. 1. The appellants, who have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2 in this case, have come forward with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, by the judgment dated 28.08.2006 made in S.C.No.137 of 2005, convicting A-1 under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment ; convicting him under Section 449 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment ; convicting A-2 under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 506 (ii) IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. There are six accused in this case and the learned trial Judge acquitted A-3 to A-6 disbelieving the prosecution case and convicted the appellants, A-1 and A-2, and sentenced them as stated above. 3. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : (i) A-1 is the brother of the deceased. A-2 is the father of A-1, P.W.2 and the deceased. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the mother of P.W.1. (ii) A-2 was owning two acres of land in the village. Out of two acres, A-2 has given half-an-acre of land to the deceased and retained 1 1/2 acres of land with himself and for A 1. The deceased demanded share even in the remaining 1 1/2 acres of land, for that, A1 and A-2 refused. Therefore, there were strained feelings between A-1, A-2 and the deceased. (iii) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 30.11.1995 at 5.30 p.m, the deceased was lying on the verandah of the house. A-1 came there with a knife, M.O.2, and stabbed the deceased repeatedly on his stomach and chest and the deceased died on the spot. P.W.1 raised hue and cry. A-1 threw the knife on the spot and ran away from the scene. A-1 came there with a knife, M.O.2, and stabbed the deceased repeatedly on his stomach and chest and the deceased died on the spot. P.W.1 raised hue and cry. A-1 threw the knife on the spot and ran away from the scene. A-2 asked P.W.1 to keep quiet and threatened her not to disclose about the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, A-3 one Raju, one Govindan and A-6 came to the land of A-2 and burnt the body of the deceased. P.W.1 out of fear went to her mother, P.W.4s house only on the next day morning and informed about the occurrence to her brother, P.W.3, who was available there. .(iv) P.W.3 took P.W.1 to Pennagaram Police Station. P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Police Station, recorded the statement from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. He registered the case in Crime No.916 of 1995 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P.13 is the Express First Information Report and he sent the same to higher police officials and to the Court. .(v) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, received the First Information Report and took up investigation in this case on 012. 1995. He examined P.W.1 at Pennagaram Police station at 11.45 a.m. He went to the scene of occurrence at 12.30 noon and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and the rough sketch, Ex.P.14. At 1.45 p.m., he recovered the bloodstained knife, M.O.2 under Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer and another. He held inquest on the bones and ashes of the body of the deceased. Ex.P.15 is the inquest report. He examined P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and others and recorded their statements. At 6.15 p.m., he recovered M.O.6, bone pieces, M.O.5, ash, M.O.3, bloodstained earth, M.O.4, sample earth, M.O.7, a piece of hair under Ex.P.4. He also recovered M.O.1, Saree under Ex.P.5. He examined some other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 012. 1995 at 10.00 a.m., he arrested A-2 at Pandarahalli bus stand. He recovered the shirt, M.O.8 under Ex.P.16. On the same day at 11.30 a.m., he arrested A-3. He sent the material objects for chemical examination through the Court. .(vi) P.W.10 took up further investigation. He examined the photographer and received the photographs, Ex.P.17 series, and negatives, Ex.P.18 series. He examined the others witnesses. He recovered the shirt, M.O.8 under Ex.P.16. On the same day at 11.30 a.m., he arrested A-3. He sent the material objects for chemical examination through the Court. .(vi) P.W.10 took up further investigation. He examined the photographer and received the photographs, Ex.P.17 series, and negatives, Ex.P.18 series. He examined the others witnesses. After receiving the bone case report, Ex.P.6, chemical report, Ex.P.11, Serologist report, Ex.P.12 and after completing the investigation, P.W.10 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 212. 2003 for the offence under Sections 449, 302, 506 (i) r/w 201 IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 11, filed Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 to 8. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they have come forward with the version of total denial and examined D.W.1. It is stated by D.W.1 that on the date of occurrence A-1 came to him and asked him to inform about the death of the deceased to the house of in-laws of the deceased. D.W.1 went along with one Mani to the house of in-laws of the deceased and as they were not available in the house enquired the persons available there and asked them to convey the message. 6. Mr.K.S.Dinakaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused by adducing clear, cogent and consistent evidence and put forward the following submissions : .(1) P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the wife and brother of the deceased, are the eye-witnesses and among them P.W.2 has completely turned hostile ; .(2) The entire prosecution case rests on the sole eye-witness, P.W.1, and her evidence is not corroborated by any independent witness and suffers from several infirmities ; (3) There is inordinate delay in giving report to the police as the occurrence was said to have taken place on 30.11.1995 at 5.30 p.m., and the report was given to the police only on the next day, i.e., on 012. 1995 at 9.30 a.m. and there is no reasonable explanation given for such delay ; (4)P.W.1 informed about the occurrence to her brother, P.W.3 only at 7.00 a.m. on the next day and thereafter, she went along with P.W.3 and gave the report and there is no explanation for not giving the information to P.W.3 immediately ; .(5) P.Ws.3 and 4 have only stated about the information given by P.W.1 regarding the occurrence and there is no incriminating materials available in their evidence against the accused ; .(6) P.W.1 stated that after the occurrence, the accused left the weapon, M.O.2 at the scene and P.W.9, Investigating Officer, was said to have recovered M.O.2 from the scene. But P.W.1 has not identified the weapon, M.O.2 and as per the chemical report, Ex.P.11, no blood was detected from M.O.2, knife. .(7) The conduct of P.W.1 is abnormal as she has stated that after her husband body was burnt, she remained at the scene over the night and only on the next day morning, she left for her mother, P.W.4s house and she further stated in the cross that the occurrence was not disclosed to anyone till the report was given to the police and such unnatural conduct throws serious doubt about the veracity of her version ; (8)P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, has stated that he came to know about the occurrence at 4.00 a.m. on 012. 1995 and he went to the scene of occurrence at 5.00 or 6.00 a.m. and at that time the police were present at the scene and as such there must be an earlier report given to the police and such report is suppressed by the prosecution and the present report, Ex.P.1, is substituted to the earlier report which raises serious doubt about the prosecution version. 7. Per contra, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is submitted that though P.W.2 has turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1, the remaining eye-witness, is quite clear and natural and there is no serious infirmity in her evidence affecting the main case of the prosecution. 7. Per contra, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is submitted that though P.W.2 has turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1, the remaining eye-witness, is quite clear and natural and there is no serious infirmity in her evidence affecting the main case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the prosecution has explained the delay in giving the report to the police as P.W.1 stated that she was threatened by her father-in-law, A-2, not to disclose about the occurrence to anyone and further P.W.1 stated that due to bus strike, buses were not available on the date of occurrence which resulted in delay in giving report to the police. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the conduct of P.W.1 is quite natural and as she was frightened and threatened, she simply remained at the scene. It is submitted that the occurrence took place in the house of the deceased and as such it is quite natural for P.W.1, wife of the deceased, to be present at the time of occurrence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that the prosecution proved the scene of occurrence as the bloodstained earth, M.O.3, was recovered from the scene. It is contended that P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, has also recovered M.O.1, bloodstained saree from P.W.1, as such the presence of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence at the scene cannot be doubted. It is submitted that as no one was available near the scene at the time of occurrence, the investigating officer has not examined any independent witness. 8. We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 9. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and he has not supported the prosecution case and he has completely turned hostile. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is left with the sole and solitary testimony of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased. 9. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and he has not supported the prosecution case and he has completely turned hostile. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is left with the sole and solitary testimony of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased. The version of P.W.1 is to the effect that there was a property dispute between the deceased and his brother, A-1 and his father A-2 as the deceased was given half-an-acre of land out of 2 acres and the deceased demanded share even in the remaining 1 1/2 acres of land. It is seen that P.W.4, mother of P.W.1, admitted in her cross-examination that she is not aware about the dispute and quarrel between the deceased and A-1 in person and she only came to know through her son-in-law, the deceased. P.W.3, brother of P.W.1, also has not whispered a word about the alleged motive put forward against A-1 and A-2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not satisfactorily established the motive against the accused. Even assuming that the prosecution has proved the motive, the motive, being a double-edged weapon, could cut both ways helping or harming both the prosecution or the defence. 10. Before proceeding to consider the credibility of the evidence of P.W.1, solitary eyewitness in this case, it is relevant to state that the evidence of solitary witness can very well be relied upon provided such evidence inspires the confidence of the Court. At the outset, we are constrained to state that the evidence of P.W.1 suffers from serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities. 11. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay in giving report to the police as the occurrence is said to have taken place on 30.11.1995 at 5.30 p.m., whereas the report, Ex.P.1 was given by P.W.1 only on the next day, i.e., on 012. 1995 at 9.30 a.m. and the police station is only at a distance of 15 kilometers from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 has not chosen to give any explanation in the chief examination for such an inordinate delay in giving report to the police. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that there was transport facility available from the scene village, but due to bus strike on the date of occurrence, there was no bus available. P.W.1 has not chosen to give any explanation in the chief examination for such an inordinate delay in giving report to the police. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that there was transport facility available from the scene village, but due to bus strike on the date of occurrence, there was no bus available. Such explanation of P.W.1 is, on the face of it, unbelievable and unacceptable. P.Ws.8 and 9, have not stated anything about the delay in registering the First Information Report. P.W.1 went and informed her brother, P.W.3 and her mother, P.W.4 about the occurrence on the next day morning at 7.00 a.m. The distance from the scene to the house of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is only five kilometers as admitted by P.W.3 in his cross-examination. It is pertinent to be noted that whether P.W.1 has informed about the occurrence to P.Ws.3 and 4 before giving report to the police is itself highly doubtful as P.W.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that the accused stabbing the deceased was not known to anyone till the report was given to the police. It is the version of P.W.1 that only she went to the police station along with P.W.3 and gave the report at 9.30 a.m. It is further relevant to note that the First Information Report reached the Magistrates Court only at 1.30 p.m. on that day. P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police, who has recorded Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 at 9.30 a.m. on 012. 1995 stated that the palacode Judicial Magistrates Court is only 25 kilometers from the Pennagaram police station and one can reach the Magistrates Court from the police station within 45 minutes. But the verification of the original report, Ex.P.1, discloses that the First Information Report reached the Magistrates Court only at 1.30 p.m. on 012. 1995. Therefore, there is also delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrates Court. In view of all these infirmities, we have no hesitation to hold that the inordinate and unexplained delay in giving report to the police and the First Information Report reaching the Magistrates Court are fatal to the prosecution case. 12. The next disturbing feature in this case is the unnatural and abnormal conduct of P.W.1. In view of all these infirmities, we have no hesitation to hold that the inordinate and unexplained delay in giving report to the police and the First Information Report reaching the Magistrates Court are fatal to the prosecution case. 12. The next disturbing feature in this case is the unnatural and abnormal conduct of P.W.1. It is the version of P.W.1 that the occurrence took place at 5.00 p.m. on 30.11.1995 and her husband was burnt after the occurrence and thereafter she was shocked and frightened and further she was threatened by her father-in-law, A-2, not to disclose the occurrence to anyone and as such she remained at the scene itself. It is pertinent to be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place during mid night and as a matter of fact, the occurrence took place, as per the prosecution version, only in the evening time at 5.30 p.m. It is also not stated by P.W.1 that A-2, her father-in-law and father of A-1, was remaining at the scene throughout and prevented her from moving out anywhere. Therefore, if she was really present at the time of occurrence, she could have informed about the occurrence to her brother, P.W.3 and her mother, P.W.4, immediately on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 30.11.1995 itself. But P.W.1 went and informed about the occurrence to P.Ws.3 and 4 only on the next day at 7.00 a.m. and such inordinate delay in P.W.1 informing her brother, P.W.3 and her mother, P.W.4 throws considerably doubt about the veracity of the version of P.W.1. In view of all these aspects, we are of the considered view that the conduct of P.W.1 is not that of the conduct of any normal prudent person and the unnatural conduct of P.W.1 probabilises the defence theory that P.W.1 could not have been present at the scene at the time of occurrence. 13. It is the further version of P.W.1 that A-1 after stabbing the deceased, ran away from the scene after throwing the knife at the scene itself and P.W.9, investigating officer, was said to have seized the knife, M.O.2 from the scene on 012. 1995. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 has not identified the knife, M.O.2. Apart from that, she has not whispered a word about the recovery of M.O.2. from the scene by P.W.9, investigating officer. 1995. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 has not identified the knife, M.O.2. Apart from that, she has not whispered a word about the recovery of M.O.2. from the scene by P.W.9, investigating officer. In the cross-examination she has stated that she came back to the scene along with police at 11.00 a.m. and if such version is true, she could have stated about the recovery of M.O.2, from the scene by the investigating officer, P.W.9. The fact remains that M.O.2 does not contain any blood as per the chemical examination report, Ex.P.11 and the serologists report, Ex.P.12. Though P.W.9 claimed that he has recovered the bloodstained knife, M.O.2, from the scene and further stated in his cross-examination that M.O.2, knife, was recovered on being produced by P.W.1, as already pointed out, the version of P.W.9 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. Yet another contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and the investigating officer is the alleged recovery of M.O.1, saree. It is seen that P.W.9, the investigating officer stated that he has recovered the bloodstained saree worn by P.W.1 at 7.30 p.m. on 012. 1995. Even regarding the alleged recovery of M.O.1, bloodstained saree, P.W.1 has not whispered a word in her evidence. If really such saree, M.O.1, worn by P.W.1 has bloodstains, P.W.1 could have very well produced the same immediately after the arrival of the police at the scene at 12.30 noon as P.W.9 claimed that he reached the scene at 12.30 noon on 012. 1995. Therefore, in view of above said infirmities and inconsistencies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9, the entire prosecution case bristled with suspicious circumstances throwing serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. 14. Yet another disturbing feature in this case is that P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he received the message about the occurrence at 4.00 a.m. on 012. 1995 and he went to the scene at 5.00 or 6.00 a.m. and even at that time, the police officials were present at the scene. It is pertinent to be noted that even in the chief examination he has stated that he received the message about the occurrence on 012. 1995 and thereafter, he went to the scene and found that already the Inspector of Police was present at the scene. It is pertinent to be noted that even in the chief examination he has stated that he received the message about the occurrence on 012. 1995 and thereafter, he went to the scene and found that already the Inspector of Police was present at the scene. But curiously the prosecution has not chosen to elicit the time of arrival of P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, to the scene after getting the message about the occurrence at 4.00 a.m. on that day. However, the fact remains that the definite version of P.W.5 is that at the time of his arrival, police officials were present at the scene. The defence also suggested to the investigating officer, P.W.9, that he went to the scene village at 6.00 a.m. itself. At this juncture, it is pertinent to be noted, as already pointed out, the delay in giving the report to the police and further delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrates Court assumes importance. In view of the above said categorical version of P.W.5 to the effect that even at the time of his arrival to the scene at 5.00 or 6.00 a.m., the police officials were present at the scene of occurrence and whereas the report itself said to have been given by P.W.1 at 9.30 a.m., we are constrained to come to the irresistible conclusion that the police must have received the information about the occurrence much earlier to the time of receipt of the present report, Ex.P.1, which is said to have been received at 9.30 a.m. and as such the suppression of the earlier report by the prosecution cannot be ruled out. This infirmity goes to the root of the prosecution case to the effect that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 15. Added to the above said serious infirmity, it is pertinent to be noted that a perusal of the observation mahazar, Ex.P.3 and the rough sketch, Ex.P.14 discloses that there is a house of one Periamuniyan situated near the house of the deceased. P.W.9, investigating officer has also admitted in his cross-examination that one Periamuniyans house is situated near the scene of occurrence, but he has stated that no one was available at the time of his visit to the scene and as such he has not examined anyone from the house of Periamuniyan. P.W.9, investigating officer has also admitted in his cross-examination that one Periamuniyans house is situated near the scene of occurrence, but he has stated that no one was available at the time of his visit to the scene and as such he has not examined anyone from the house of Periamuniyan. This version of P.W.9 is unacceptable and he could have very well examined the said Periamuniyan or anyone of the persons from his house subsequently. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-examination of the said Periamuniyan, who is a neighbour of the deceased, or anyone from his house is fatal to the prosecution case. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to come to the inevitable conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, by the judgment dated 28.08.2006 in S.C.No.137 of 2005, are hereby set aside. Bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the appellants.