Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was tried in S.C.No.207 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By the judgment dated 11. 2006, he was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Challenging the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution laid the charge sheet on the following facts:- The deceased-Pramila @ Ramila is the daughter of P.Ws.1 & 3. She was studying X standard at the time of occurrence. On 210. 2004, the deceased returned to her house at about 2.00 p.m., after attending the school. At about 5.00 p.m., P.W.1 asked the deceased to cut the grass for the cattle. Hence the deceased went to the field belonging to P.W.6 to cut the grass. At about 6.00 p.m., P.Ws.1,2 & 3 heard the noise of the deceased from the field. P.W.2, the sister of the deceased, saw the accused holding the deceased and the deceased resisted the accused from molesting her. On seeing P.W.2, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the sickle, marked as M.O.4. By that time, P.Ws.1 & 3 also came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased with multiple injuries lying dead. 3. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 at 7.30 p.m., on the same day to P.W.11, the Inspector of Police attached to Ambur Taluk Police Station. The said complaint was registered in Cr.No.496 of 2004 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the First Information Report is Ex.P-24. He forwarded the copy of the report to the Court. He took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m., and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-2 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-25 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. He also seized the bloodstained earth, M.O.5 and the sample earth, M.O.6 under the mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 10.00 p.m., and 1.00 a.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-26. He sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable to the Ambur Government Hospital for conducting post-mortem. 4. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 10.00 p.m., and 1.00 a.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-26. He sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable to the Ambur Government Hospital for conducting post-mortem. 4. P.W.10, Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Ambur, commenced post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 2.30 p.m., on 210. 2004 and he noted the following external injuries:- "1. A cut injury 5 cm x 2 cm on left side of the neck region the thyroid cartilege involving the muscle. 2. 3 cm x ½ cm skin deep lacerated wound on the left parietal region. 3. 5 cm x ½ cm another skin deep lacerated wound on the left parietal region about 3 cm away from wound no.2. 4. Pressure abrasions - on the right side of the neck about 7-8 cms in breadth ¬resembling 4 finger impressions about 2 ½ - 3 inches in length with multiple nail marks down the ear lobe opposite to the collar bone. 5. Pressure abrasions on the left mandible of size about 10 cm x 6 cm. 6. Mandible found fractured between right canine and lateral incisor. 7. There was ecchymosis underlying the skin of the neck muscles." He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-23 with his final opinion that the deceased died of asphyxia due to throttling 20 to 22 hours prior to post-mortem. 5. P.W.11, in the meanwhile, examined P.Ws.1,2,3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He searched for the accused and ultimately, arrested the accused, who was standing at the bus stop near the field of Periasami, at 6.00 a.m., on 210. 2004 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused, he seized the three sticks, M.O.3 and the bloodstained sickle, M.O.4 produced by the accused at 8.30 a.m., in the presence of the same witnesses under the mahazar. He also seized the bloodstained polyester shirt, M.O.7 and the bloodstained cotton lungi, M.O.8 produced by the accused from his house. He brought the accused to the police station and remanded him to judicial custody. He examined P.W.4, the Village Assistant and another witness and recorded their statements. He examined the photographer, P.W.5 and another witness and recorded their statements. He also seized the bloodstained polyester shirt, M.O.7 and the bloodstained cotton lungi, M.O.8 produced by the accused from his house. He brought the accused to the police station and remanded him to judicial custody. He examined P.W.4, the Village Assistant and another witness and recorded their statements. He examined the photographer, P.W.5 and another witness and recorded their statements. He also seized the photographs and the negatives from them on 210. 2004. He examined the teacher of the school, P.W.7 and recorded his statement. He also gave requisition under Ex.P-27 to the Court for sending the accused for potency test. He also sent the seized material objects through the Court for chemical examination. He examined the doctor, P.W.9 who conducted potency test on the accused on 11. 2004 and recorded his statement. He examined the post¬mortem doctor, P.W.10 on 1. 2005 and recorded his statement. After receiving the chemical analysts report and the serologists report and after completing investigation and obtaining legal opinion from the Government Advocate, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 2. 2005 for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the Court. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, marked 28 exhibits and produced 8 material objects. 7. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied them as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. Based on the evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him for the offence as stated above. 8. Mr.L.Mahendran, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is false and the accused has been falsely implicated after elaborate deliberations by the police with P.Ws.1,2,3 and the villagers. He would submit that P.W.4, the Village Assistant, has specifically deposed that on hearing the incident, the police came to the scene of occurrence even at 6.00 p.m., on 210. 2004 and enquired all those who were present at that time. According to him, the police were present at the scene of occurrence till 10.00 p.m. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 that after the occurrence he went to the police station at 7.30 p.m., and lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 in writing is totally false. 2004 and enquired all those who were present at that time. According to him, the police were present at the scene of occurrence till 10.00 p.m. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 that after the occurrence he went to the police station at 7.30 p.m., and lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 in writing is totally false. The complaint was preferred after the enquiry was made by the Investigating Officer for falsely implicating the accused. The learned counsel would also submit that the recovery of the sticks, M.O.3 and the sickle, M.O.4 has been made for the purpose of implicating the accused. To support the said contention, the learned counsel would draw our attention to the evidence of P.W.3. In her evidence, P.W.3 has stated that she, P.W.1, her husband and their in-laws were shown both the material objects even at 3.00 a.m., on 210. 2004. On the other hand, the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.11 is that the accused was arrested at about 6.00 a.m., on 210. 2004 and he gave the confessional statement and on the basis of the admissible portion of his confession, the accused had produced the sticks, M.O.3 and the sickle, M.O.4 at about 8.30 a.m. The arrest and recovery as spoken to by the Investigating Officer are not supported by the evidence of P.W.3. Hence the recovery aspect has not been established. He would submit that the presence of P.Ws.1,2 & 3 in the scene place is highly doubtful and even P.W.2, who has spoken about the occurrence, has not witnessed the accused actually causing injuries on the deceased. Likewise, P.Ws.1 & 3 have not spoken about the fact that the accused only had caused the injuries on the deceased. The prosecution has relied upon only the circumstance namely, that P.W.2 saw the accused holding the deceased and on seeing her, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. There is no evidence that the accused only had caused injuries as alleged by the prosecution. Hence for all these reasons, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 9. We have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also. There is no evidence that the accused only had caused injuries as alleged by the prosecution. Hence for all these reasons, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 9. We have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also. He would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 is highly reliable, as she has stated that she actually saw the accused holding the deceased and was making attempts to molest her and on seeing her, the accused fled from the scene of occurrence. Later on, P.W.2 and the other witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 & 3 found the deceased with injuries. The nature of injuries spoken to by the above three witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence namely, the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-23 issued by the post-mortem doctor, P.W.10. The expert opinion of the doctor in Ex.P-16 noting the fracture of the greater horn on the right side of the deceased proves the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Hence the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. So far as the occurrence is concerned, it is seen that the deceased was doing her X standard at the time of occurrence. The fact that she came from the school at about 2.00 p.m., on the date of occurrence is spoken to by P.W.1, the father of the deceased. P.W.1 has also spoken that he asked the deceased to cut the grass for the cattle around 5.00 p.m. The fact that the deceased went to cut the grass is also spoken to by P.W.6, the owner of the field. The fact that the deceased raised a screaming cry is spoken to by P.Ws.1,2 & 3 who have, on hearing such noise, run to the scene of occurrence. P.W.2 had in fact seen the accused in the place of occurrence particularly, when the accused was holding the deceased and making attempts to molest her and the deceased was resisting. On seeing P.W.2, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with the M.O.4-sickle, which has been identified by P.W.2 as well as P.Ws.1 & 3. P.W.2 had in fact seen the accused in the place of occurrence particularly, when the accused was holding the deceased and making attempts to molest her and the deceased was resisting. On seeing P.W.2, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with the M.O.4-sickle, which has been identified by P.W.2 as well as P.Ws.1 & 3. Thereafter, all the three witnesses namely, P.Ws.1,2 & 3 saw the deceased with the injuries as spoken to by the post-mortem doctor, P.W.10 who has issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P- 23. In these circumstances, the prosecution case must be accepted as to the circumstance namely, the injuries were caused only by the accused while attempting to molest the deceased and we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 & 3. 11. So far as the submission that even before the complaint was lodged at 7.30 p.m., on 210. 2004, the police were present in the scene of occurrence as well made enquiry and therefore the First Information Report itself was given only after the enquiry had commenced and hence there is every possibility of falsely implicating the accused after the police had deliberations with the family members of the deceased, more particularly, P.Ws.1,2 & 3 and the villagers is concerned, in our considered view, this submission cannot be accepted to throw a doubt on the prosecution case. Law on preliminary enquiry is now well accepted by the Apex Court, as it has been held in Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others (2007 (1) SCC (Crl.) 406), that it is not necessary that as and when an offence is committed, the police must register the case for causing investigation in order to find out the actual assailant and the surrounding circumstances. The police are empowered to cause the preliminary enquiry even without there being any complaint. It is true that the first information is the foremost document to set the law in motion and empowers the Investigating Officer to cause investigation on the complaint. However, when an offence is reported and the police came to know of such occurrence even without any specific complaint, being the law enforcing machinery, the police are empowered and in fact obligated to immediately rush to the scene of occurrence to collect materials as to the cause of occurrence. However, when an offence is reported and the police came to know of such occurrence even without any specific complaint, being the law enforcing machinery, the police are empowered and in fact obligated to immediately rush to the scene of occurrence to collect materials as to the cause of occurrence. The said collection of materials or the enquiry made by the Investigating Officer for that matter cannot be considered to be an investigation as such, which is carried on after the First Information Report is registered in accordance with law. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the accused as to the presence of the police at 6.00 p.m., on 210. 2004 in the scene of occurrence is accepted, that should be considered only for a preliminary investigation and merely because the police had made enquiry, that will not take the Court to disbelieve the complaint which has been subsequently given. Further, P.W.4, the Village Assistant has not been controverted during cross examination as to the presence of the police at the scene of occurrence. For the said reason, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the accused in this regard. 12. In so far as the challenge to the complaint namely, that the Investigating Officer himself has stated that he was not aware as to who had written the complaint and whereas P.W.1 has specifically stated that he gave a written complaint to the police, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no discrepancy whatsoever in the statement of P.W.1 and the Investigating Officer. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he went to the police station and gave the complaint, which was reduced into writing by the Head Constable, to the police only. He has not specifically stated that he gave the complaint to the Investigating Officer namely, P.W.11, who has reduced the same into writing. If the above evidence of P.W.1 is considered with reference to the evidence of P.W.11, the Investigating Officer deposing to the effect that he did not know who had written the complaint, in our considered view, shows no contradiction. P.W.11 could not have known that the complaint was written by a police Constable at the relevant point of time. Therefore only, he has stated that he was not aware as to who wrote the complaint. P.W.11 could not have known that the complaint was written by a police Constable at the relevant point of time. Therefore only, he has stated that he was not aware as to who wrote the complaint. Hence the contention regarding the contradiction in the complaint cannot be accepted and accordingly, the same is rejected. 13. So far as the recovery aspect is concerned, it is true that P.W.3 has specifically stated that she was shown M.Os.3 & 4 at about 3.00 a.m., on 210. 2004 by the police. She has also spoken about the presence of P.Ws.1 & 2 at the time when the police had shown those material objects. The evidence of P.W.11 on this aspect is just contrary namely, he has spoken that he arrested the accused only at 6.00 a.m., on 210. 2004 and made the recovery only at 8.30 a.m. In our considered view, this should be a major contradiction and it is not a mere difference of half-an-hour or one hour time with regard to the recovery. P.W.3 has specifically stated that on the early morning at 3.00 a.m., on 210. 2004, she was shown the material objects by the police. Hence the Court necessarily entertains a doubt about the recovery and when such doubt is entertained, the benefit should be given to the accused. Accordingly, it must be held that the recovery aspect has not been established by the prosecution. 14. The next question is merely because the prosecution has not proved the recovery would by itself lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version or the prosecution has come forward with a false case against the accused. As has been held by the Apex Court, the recovery is not a substantive piece of evidence for sustaining the conviction, as it can at best only form an additional piece of evidence. In the event the prosecution is able to prove the involvement of the accused by other acceptable evidence, mere failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the recovery need not necessarily result in disbelieving the prosecution case. As we have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as to the occurrence, the mere fact that the recovery has not been established does not take us to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 15. As we have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as to the occurrence, the mere fact that the recovery has not been established does not take us to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 15. In addition to the above, the prosecution has established the nature of injuries as spoken to by P.Ws.1,2 & 3. The post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-23 refers to all the injuries as spoken to by P.Ws.1,2 & 3. The expert opinion of the doctor in Ex.P-16 is also to the effect that the death was due to the fracture of the greater horn as spoken to by P.Ws.1,2 & 3. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 & 3 is amply corroborated by the medical evidence and in these circumstances, the argument that P.Ws.1,2 & 3 have not witnessed the occurrence and they have only falsely implicated the accused is totally unacceptable. That apart, there is absolutely no suggestion as to why all the three witnesses should falsely implicate the accused. 16. For all the above reasons, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the Court below in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence of murder. Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and it is dismissed.