Judgment K.N. Basha, J. The appellants are the accused 1 to 6 and they have come forward with this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 10. 2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu made in SC.No.194/2000 convicting the appellants/A-1 to A-6 for the offence under section 148 IPC and sentencing them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicting appellants/A-2 to A-5 for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-carrying with the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:- [a] P.W.2 is the brother and P.W.3 is the father of the deceased Punniyakodi. There was a dispute between the accused and the deceased family in respect of the house. Three months prior to the occurrence, a complaint was given on the allegation of the accused cutting the hand of the mother of P.W.2 and accused 1 to 3 have been arrested in that case. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the accused and the deceased family. [b] On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., 112. 1998 at 7.00 p.m., P.W.2 along with the deceased went to K.G. Kandigai for some personal work and they were returning back to their village at 7.00 p.m. On the way, they met P.W.4 and P.W.4 asked the deceased to come along with him in his cycle. The deceased was going in the cycle along with P.W.4. While they were nearing Nandhi River, A-2 cut the deceased on his left ear; A-3 also had cut the deceased on his left ear; A-5 cut the deceased on his left leg; A-4 cut the deceased on the back of his head and A-6 cut the deceased on the left shoulder of the deceased. All the accused cut the deceased with knives. The deceased fell down. P.W.2 informed P.W.3, the father of the deceased about the occurrence. P.W.4 also came and informed P.W.3 about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.2 along with P.Ws.3 and 4 went to Tiruttani Police Station and stated about the occurrence to the Inspector of Police. [c] P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer was called by the Inspector of Police on 112. 1998 at 00.00 hours through the Constable. P.W.4 also came and informed P.W.3 about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.2 along with P.Ws.3 and 4 went to Tiruttani Police Station and stated about the occurrence to the Inspector of Police. [c] P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer was called by the Inspector of Police on 112. 1998 at 00.00 hours through the Constable. The Inspector informed P.W.1 that there was a murder within the jurisdiction of the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.1 informed the Inspector that he would go to the scene of occurrence and verify. But, the Inspector of Police informed that he has already seen the scene of occurrence and he has instructed P.W.1 to give a report as per his dictation. P.W.1 refused to give any such report. But, the Inspector of Police insisted him to give a report in writing as per his dictation and accordingly, P.W.1 wrote a report under Ex.P.1. [d] P.W.31, the Sub-Inspector of Police stated that on 112. 1998 P.W.1 appeared before him at the Police Station and gave a report, Ex.P.1. He registered the case in Crime No.1117 of 1998 for the offence under sections 147,148 and 302 IPC. Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report. He sent the same to the Court concerned and to the higher police officials. [e] P.W.32, the Inspector of Police received the FIR on 112. 1998 at 8.25 p.m. and took up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12-rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. He held inquest on the dead body from 10.00 p.m. to 00.00 hours. Ex.P.13 is the Inquest Report. He sent the body for postmortem through the constable under requisition Ex.P.4. [f] The doctor, P.W.26, attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruttani, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 112. 1998 at 1.30 p.m., on receipt of the requisition under Ex.P.4. He found the following injuries:- "Injuries:- 1] Incised wound left thigh 15cmx3cm exposing the muscles of left thigh. 2] Incised wound left thigh lateral aspect 7cmx1.5cm. 3] Incised wound left side of face and skull extending from back of skull to left eye 28cmx2cm with fracture of underlying skull bone. 4] Incised wound left side of face extending from back of skull to left cheek 18cmx3cm across the left ear with fracture of underlying skull bone and vertebra. 2] Incised wound left thigh lateral aspect 7cmx1.5cm. 3] Incised wound left side of face and skull extending from back of skull to left eye 28cmx2cm with fracture of underlying skull bone. 4] Incised wound left side of face extending from back of skull to left cheek 18cmx3cm across the left ear with fracture of underlying skull bone and vertebra. 5] Incised wound over the left side of face and back 14cmx2cm with fracture of skull bone. 6] Incised wound over the middle of the skull from left to right 25cmx3cm with fracture of underlying skull bone." Ex.P.5 is the Postmortem Certificate wherein the doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to multiple head injuries and infra cerebral injuries, bleeding to haemorrhage and injury to vital organs-heart. [g] P.W.32, in continuation of his investigation examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and others and recorded their statements. He recovered blood stained articles from the body of the deceased on 112. 1998 under Form 95. The clothes of the deceased are marked as M.Os.1 to 3. On 112. 1998 at 6.30 a.m. he arrested A-3. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A-3 under Ex.P.15 he recovered M.Os.4 to 8Veecharuval and knives under Ex.P.16. He also recovered M.O.9-Enfield Bullet bike bearing registration No.TN-20-2766 under Ex.P.17. Thereafter, A-3 was remanded to judicial custody. He examined some more witnesses on 112. 1998 and recorded their statements. On 04.01.1999 he arrested A-5. On 07.01.1999, he arrested A-1 at 6.00 a.m. near Mamandoor. Both the accused were remanded to judicial custody. On 11. 1999 he arrested A-4 as produced by P.W.24, Village Administrative Officer. He examined some more witnesses on 03.03.1999. The material objects were subjected to chemical analysis through Court. He also received Ex.P.5-the Postmortem Certificate and examined the doctor P.W.26 who has conducted the postmortem and received the Chemical Analyst Report, Ex.P.8 and Serologist Report, Ex.P.9. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the accused on 33. 1999. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 32, marked Exs.P.1 to 17 and M.Os.1 to 9. 4. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against each of them, they have denied their complicity and they have come forward with the version of total denial. 4. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against each of them, they have denied their complicity and they have come forward with the version of total denial. They have not chosen to examine any witnesses or mark any document on their side. 5. Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is contended that the prosecution examined two eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.2 and 4 and P.W.4 has turned hostile and as such, it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.2. It is submitted that P.W.1has categorically stated in the chief examination that he has written Ex.P.1 report only as per the dictation of the Inspector. But P.W.1 has not been treated hostile. Learned counsel would further submit that curiously in Ex.P.1, the names of all the accused have been mentioned in spite of the fact that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is contended that there is no explanation from the prosecution as the Investigating Officer, P.W.32, has not given any explanation as to how the names of the accused 1 to 6 have been mentioned in Ex.P.1 and on whose information. It is further contended that P.W.2, brother of the deceased, had categorically stated even in his chief examination that after the occurrence, they went to the respondent Police Station and gave a report and thereafter, P.W.2 reiterated in his cross examination to the effect that on 112. 1998, he gave the report at 7.30 p.m. to the Inspector of Police wherein he has stated about the occurrence which was recorded by the Inspector and he has signed in that report and further stated that, only that report is the first report in respect of this case. But the prosecution has suppressed that report and as such, there is a serious doubt about the prosecution case and the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 6. It is contended that P.W.2 admitted that the scene of occurrence is a busy place always with a floating population and several persons witnessed the occurrence. But the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. 6. It is contended that P.W.2 admitted that the scene of occurrence is a busy place always with a floating population and several persons witnessed the occurrence. But the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. It is submitted that P.W.2 is also on inmical terms with the accused as he has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused has given a complaint against his father and himself and as a result, they were arrested and as such, P.W.2 is a partisan witness and it is unsafe to place reliance on his evidence. 7. Per contra, Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is contended that though P.W.4 has turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.2, the eyewitness to the occurrence, is clear and natural and there is no serious infirmity in his evidence. It is submitted that P.W.32, the Inspector of Police, has denied the receipt of any report from P.W.2 and there is no reason for P.W.32 to suppress the report given by P.W.2 as P.W.2 has narrated about the occurrence clearly in the evidence and implicated all the accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that Ex.P.1 and the statement of P.W.2 recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., reached the Magistrate Court on 112. 1998 together and as such, there is no intention for the Inspector of Police, P.W.32, to suppress any report from P.W.2 who is an eyewitness and whereas, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness and Ex.P.1 contains only hearsay information given to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer. It is contended that weapons M.Os.4 to 8, contains human blood B group and the recovery of the weapons was proved by the prosecution through the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.32, though the other witnesses who had spoken about the recovery have turned hostile. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the evidence of the eyewitness P.W.2 is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the doctor P.W.26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that though P.W.1 had not supported the prosecution case, the report Ex.P.1 contains the names of the accused and the information about the occurrence was given by someone to P.W.1 and as such, the contents of Ex.P.1 is hearsay. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that though P.W.1 had not supported the prosecution case, the report Ex.P.1 contains the names of the accused and the information about the occurrence was given by someone to P.W.1 and as such, the contents of Ex.P.1 is hearsay. It is submitted that excluding the evidence of P.W.1, the case of the prosecution is proved by the evidence of P.W.2. 8. We have given our careful, thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and 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 eyewitnesses P.Ws.2 and 4. P.W.4 has given a total go-by to his earlier version and he has turned completely hostile and as such, his evidence is neither helpful to the prosecution nor to the defence. Therefore, the entire prosecution is left with the sole and solitary testimony of P.W.2. The fact remains that P.W.2 is none else than the brother of the deceased and apart from that, the family of the deceased were on inmical terms with the accused as the accused has given a complaint against P.W.2 and his father P.W.3 and both of them have been arrested as per the admission of P.W.2. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.2 is not only an interested witness but also a partisan witness and as such, we have to scrutinise his evidence with great care and caution. 10. Before proceeding to consider the evidence of P.W.2, let us now scrutinise the evidence of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, who is said to be the author of the report Ex.P.1 as per the prosecution case. It is claimed by P.W.31 that P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer appeared before him on 112. 1998 and gave the report Ex.P.1 at 8.00 p.m. But P.W.1 has categorically stated even in his chief examination that he has written the report Ex.P.1 only as per the dictation of the Inspector of Police. Therefore, P.W.1 disowned the contents of Ex.P.1. The fact remains that the prosecution has not chosen to treat P.W.1 as hostile. The perusal of Ex.P.1 shows that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness and further the contents are very vague. Therefore, P.W.1 disowned the contents of Ex.P.1. The fact remains that the prosecution has not chosen to treat P.W.1 as hostile. The perusal of Ex.P.1 shows that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness and further the contents are very vague. It is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the accused 1 to 6 with aruval and knife have cut the deceased on his thigh, neck, face and all over the body. It is seen that the motive in respect of the dispute regarding the house was also mentioned in Ex.P.1. But curiously, the source of information from whom such information was received was not disclosed. With that background of scenario, we have to scrutinise the evidence of P.W.2. 11. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.2 has categorically stated even in his chief examination that immediately after the occurrence he went to Tiruttani Police Station along with his father P.W.3 and P.W.4, another eyewitness to the occurrence and they have informed about the occurrence to the Inspector. Again it is reiterated by P.W.2 in his cross-examination that on 112. 1998 at 7.30 p.m. he went to the respondent Police Station and narrated about the occurrence which was recorded by the Inspector and he has signed that report and that is the first report in this case. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, such report was suppressed and the same is not before the Court. The defence also put a suggestion to P.W.32 that on 112. 1998 P.W.2 gave a report at 7.30 p.m. and they have suppressed that report as the same was against the prosecution. It is further suggested to P.W.32 that P.W.1 was summoned to the police station and a report was prepared by the police and the signature of P.W.1 was obtained. But the prosecution has not chosen to clarify by re-examining P.W.2 even after P.W.2 has categorically stated that he has given a report to the police immediately after the occurrence along with P.Ws.3 and 4. As rightly pointed out, the definite stand of P.W.2 is that he has given a report at 7.30 p.m. on 112. 1998, there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution in respect of the categorical version of P.W.2. As rightly pointed out, the definite stand of P.W.2 is that he has given a report at 7.30 p.m. on 112. 1998, there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution in respect of the categorical version of P.W.2. In view of the above said categorical version of P.W.2, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has suppressed the earlier report given by P.W.2 and the present report Ex.P.1 is substituted in the name of P.W.1. As already pointed out that P.W.1 had disowned the contents of Ex.P.1. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Ex.P.1 is nothing but a fabricated document. The prosecution, as such, has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. The Honble Apex Court has held in Marudanal Augusti Vs. State Of Kerala Reported In ( AIR 1980 SC 638 ) that:- "..the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the First Information Report is held to be fabricated...." Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law in the decision cited supra, as already pointed out, even in this case, the earliest report given by P.W.2 was suppressed and there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution and as such, the prosecution case is liable to be rejected on that sole ground. 12. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that Ex.P.1 and the statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the alleged eyewitness, reached the Magistrate Court together on 112. 1998 and as such, there is no reason for the Investigating officer, P.W.32, suppressed the report given by P.W.2 and substituted the same into the report Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1. As already stated, P.W.1 has categorically stated that he is not the author of Ex.P.1 and he has written the report as per the dictation of the Inspector of Police and curiously the prosecution also has not chosen to treat P.W.1 as hostile witness. Again, as already pointed out, a perusal of Ex.P.1 discloses that even as per Ex.P.1, P.W.1, is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and strangely and curiously, the names of the accused 1 to 6 with specific overt acts were mentioned in Ex.P.1. The source of information about such details was not disclosed in Ex.P.1. Again, as already pointed out, a perusal of Ex.P.1 discloses that even as per Ex.P.1, P.W.1, is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and strangely and curiously, the names of the accused 1 to 6 with specific overt acts were mentioned in Ex.P.1. The source of information about such details was not disclosed in Ex.P.1. The undisputed fact remains that P.W.32, the Investigating Officer also has not whispered a word or given any explanation as to how the names of the accused 1 to 6 as well as their overt acts were mentioned in Ex.P.1 and from whom those informations were gathered in respect of the occurrence in this case. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not impressive. 13. The yet another contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused by recovering the weapons M.Os.4 to 8 containing blood stains of human blood B group is also unacceptable. It is seen that the recovery witnesses completely turned hostile and the prosecution is left with the sole testimony of P.W.32 that he has arrested A-3 on 112. 1998 and in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A-3 under Ex.P.15, the weapons M.Os.4 to 8 were recovered. It is pertinent to be noted that it is not mentioned in the recovery mahazar Ex.P.16 that M.Os.4 to 8 were stained with blood. P.W.32 also admitted in his cross-examination that it was not mentioned in the recovery Mahazar, Ex.P.16 that M.Os.4 to 8 were blood stained. Added to this infirmity, it is seen as per the evidence of P.W.27, the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruttani that M.Os.4 to 8 were received by the Court only on 25.03.1999 and there is absolutely no explanation for such an inordinate delay in sending M.Os.4 to 8 to the Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not safe to place reliance on the recoveries of M.Os.4 to 8 said to have been recovered by the Investigating Officer, P.W.32. Therefore, the entire prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities and hence, we are constrained to come to the inevitable conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable. 14. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in the judgment dated 10. Therefore, the entire prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities and hence, we are constrained to come to the inevitable conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable. 14. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in the judgment dated 10. 2005 by the learned District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, No.V, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.194/2000 are set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed. 15. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Hence, bail bond, if any, executed by them, shall stand terminated and the fine amount, if any paid, may be directed to be refunded to them. `