Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur dated 31. 2007 made in S.C.No.97 of 2006 whereby the appellants/A.1 and A.2 stood charged and tried for the charge under Section 302 IPC and A.3 under sections 302 IPC r/w 109 IPC and found guilty as per the charges and awarded imprisonment for life. 2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: .(i) PW.1 is the native of Mugavur. The deceased jawahar is acquainted with PW.1. A few days prior to Deepawali 2005, when PW.1 accompanied by Jawahar warned A.2 that he should not spoil himself in his young age by having illicit intimacy with ladies and the same was witnessed by PW.6, who intervened and pacified them. .(ii) On 12. 2005, at about 9.15 p.m., when PW.1 and the deceased proceeded to attend natures call, they went near the place of the occurrence where A.2 was found standing there. As usual, the deceased warned A.2 that "you do not get spoil yourself with ladies affair". Being got provoked by the same, A.2 went to the village and brought A.1 and A.3 there. At the instigation of A.3, both A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased on different parts of the body. Immediately, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. This was witnessed by PW.1. (iii) Severely injured Jawahar was taken to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam where PW.8 Doctor was on duty at about 10.45 p.m., on 12. 2005, examined the said Jawahar and found injuries which were mentioned in the Accident Register Copy, which was marked as Ex.P.3. An intimation was given to Rajapalayam South Police Station. Then, a message was given over phone to Thalaviapuram Police Station. PW.13, Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the information, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, recorded the statement of the injured Jawahar at 11.25 p.m., on the same day, which was marked as Ex.P.4. He came back to the Police Station and on the strength of Ex.P.4, he registered a case in Crime No.203 of 2005 under Section 307 IPC. (iv) PW.13 took up investigation. On receipt of the death intimation of the deceased Jawahar, he altered section 307 as one of 302 IPC and despatched Express F.I.R. to the Court and to the higher officials. (iv) PW.13 took up investigation. On receipt of the death intimation of the deceased Jawahar, he altered section 307 as one of 302 IPC and despatched Express F.I.R. to the Court and to the higher officials. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.1 and a rough sketch Ex.P.13 in the presence of witnesses. He proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai where the deceased died. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.14. He issued a requisition Ex.P.15 to the Government Hospital Authorities for conducting post-mortem. .(v) PW.9, Doctor, attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Jawahar. He found injuries as described in the post-mortem certificate issued by him, which was marked as Ex.P.6. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple stab injuries. .(vi) PW.13, Inspector of Police, on knowing that the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, he made a requisition for police custody of the accused and the same was ordered. On 112. 2005, all these accused were interrogated by the police and during interrogation, A.1 and A.2 volunteered to give confessional statements in the presence of PW.10 V.A.O and another witness. Their admissible part of the confessional statements were marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 respectively. Pursuant to their confession, MO.2 knife and MO.3 knife were recovered from the accused under the cover of mahazer Ex.P.10. He sent the accused for judicial custody. (vii) All the materials recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body of the deceased were sent to Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis, which resulted in two reports viz., Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.19 and Serological Report Ex.P.18. (viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.14, Inspector of Police filed a final report against the accused/appellants as per the charge. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charge was framed. 3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 19 Exhibits and 6 MOs. (viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.14, Inspector of Police filed a final report against the accused/appellants as per the charge. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charge was framed. 3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 19 Exhibits and 6 MOs. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied on the part of the accused. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials available on record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and found the accused/appellants guilty of the charge and awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit as follows:- .(i) In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place, according to the prosecution, at about 9.15 p.m., on 12. 2005, for which, PW.1 and PW.2 were the occurrence witnesses. Out of these witnesses, PW.2 has turned hostile and hence, the prosecution could not have the help of that part of evidence. Then, PW.1 was the only solitary witness. There are so many circumstances pointing to the fact that PW.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all. .(ii) According to the prosecution case, immediately, after the occurrence, the deceased was brought to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam. He was semi-conscious and he could not speak in the hospital. Therefore, it was actually the statement of his father, who brought him to the hospital, was recorded and not the statement from the deceased. (iii) Added further the learned senior counsel that according to PW.1, he saw A.1 and A.3 attacking the deceased whereas according to the prosecution, A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased. .(iv) Further, insofar as the place of occurrence, according to the prosecution, it was just before Pandy Vinayagar Temple in the village. But, according to PW.1, it was in the road at Chokkanathanputthur. .(iv) Further, insofar as the place of occurrence, according to the prosecution, it was just before Pandy Vinayagar Temple in the village. But, according to PW.1, it was in the road at Chokkanathanputthur. (v) Further, insofar as the statement alleged to have been given by the deceased when he was in the hospital, the learned senior counsel would submit that this statement would not have been given by the deceased at all. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 9.15 p.m.,. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam at about 10.45 p.m. where he was examined by PW.8 Doctor. PW.8 found injuries on the dead body of the deceased and gave treatment. He issued an Accident Register copy Ex.P.3, which would clearly reveal that he was semi-conscious at that time and he could not speak also. Hence, it is quite clear that the statement of some one, who came to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam was recorded and the statement would clearly reveal that the deceased was stabbed by only one known person. Thus, there was no account for the other two accused. Further, according to the Doctor, PW.8, at about 10.45 p.m., when the deceased was brought to the hospital, he gave an intimation to the respondent police over phone. The distance between the respondent police station and the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam is 15 Kms. Immediately after assessing the seriousness of the injuries, the deceased was referred to the Government Hospital, Madurai. Therefore, there was no necessity for keeping the deceased in the Government Hospital, Rajapalaym to enable the Sub Inspector of Police PW.12 to come and record the statement of the deceased. Ex.P.4 statement could not have come into existence at about 11.15 p.m, since the injured Jawahar could not have revived the entire incident within 20 minutes since he was semi conscious and could not speak. Hence, the statement Ex.P.4 alleged to have been given by the deceased is highly doubtful and unbelievable. .(vi) Added further the learned counsel, the case was, originally, registered under Section 307 IPC. PW.12, in his chief examination, has stated that the case was registered under Section 302 IPC and no where he has stated that it was the case originally registered under section 307 IPC. .(vi) Added further the learned counsel, the case was, originally, registered under Section 307 IPC. PW.12, in his chief examination, has stated that the case was registered under Section 302 IPC and no where he has stated that it was the case originally registered under section 307 IPC. (vii) F.I.R one registered under Section 307 IPC and the F.I.R. altered to section 302 IPC were reached the Judicial Magistrate on the very next day at 4.00 a.m.,. It could clearly indicate that the prosecution has no truth at all in its case. (viii) There is no eye-witness at all in the instant case and hence, the prosecution wanted to rope the accused in this case. (ix) In such circumstances, the appellants are entitled for acquittal but the trial Court convicted and sentenced them for life imprisonment, which is not correct either factually or legally and hence, the appellants have got to be acquitted in the hands of the Court. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 6. The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made a thorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record. 7. It is not in controversy that one Jawahar, who sustained injuries, in the incident that took place at 9.15 p.m., on 12. 2005 was taken to the Government Hospital, Rajapalaym, where he was examined by Doctor PW.8 and despite treatment, the said Jawahar succumbed to injuries. Following the inquest made by PW.13, Inspector of Police, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem. The Doctor, PW.9, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple stab injuries sustained. The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellants at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, without any impediment, it can be factually recorded so. 8. In order to substantiate the accusation that it was the appellants/A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased on the instigation of 3rd accused, the prosecution has rested its case on the direct evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and also the statement Ex.P.4 alleged to have been given by the deceased Jawahar. Out of these two witnesses, PW.2 has turned hostile. The only direct evidence that is available for the prosecution is PW.1. Out of these two witnesses, PW.2 has turned hostile. The only direct evidence that is available for the prosecution is PW.1. It is well settled that Court can enter conviction on the evidence of solitary evidence but it must be convincing and acceptable and free from any reasonable doubts. The Court, even after applying the test, is not convinced to accept the evidence of PW.1. 9. According to the prosecution, being provoked by the words, the deceased Jawahar, A.2 went to the village and brought A.1 and A.3 and at the time of occurrence, on the instruction of A.3, A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased but according to PW.1, who claimed to be the eye-witness, A.1 and A.3 attacked him on the instigation of A.2. In the course of evidence, he has not given any backdrop to overcome the role of A.2. If viewed, it is highly doubtful whether PW.1 could have been present at the place of occurrence at all. It is an admitted fact that PW.1 is a friend of the deceased. For the occurrence, he was also a witness. Naturally, his conduct should be either to rescue the said Jawahar from the occurrence or prevent such occurrence or immediately, he should have taken the injured Jawahar to hospital but he had not done so. According to the Accident Register Copy Ex.P.3, when the deceased Jawahar was brought to the hospital, he was semi-conscious and he could not speak and the statement was recorded from his father, who brought him to the hospital. Thus, it would be quite clear that PW.1 could not have been present in the place of occurrence. 10. Added circumstances against the prosecution are that, in the instant case, PW.8 Doctor gave an intimation to Rajapalayam South Police initially and then gave message over phone to the respondent police where PW.12 was on duty. On receiving message, he rushed over to the Government Hospital, Rajapalaym, which was located 15 kms away from the respondent police station. According to PW.8 Doctor, at about 10.45 p.m, when examined, the injured Jawahar was semi-conscious and could not speak. PW.12 would claim that he came to hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Jawahar at 11.15 p.m.,. On receiving message, he rushed over to the Government Hospital, Rajapalaym, which was located 15 kms away from the respondent police station. According to PW.8 Doctor, at about 10.45 p.m, when examined, the injured Jawahar was semi-conscious and could not speak. PW.12 would claim that he came to hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Jawahar at 11.15 p.m.,. Within half an hour, it is highly doubtful whether a person who was under semi-conscious, would revive his entire memory and give full narration as to the occurrence as found in Ex.P.4. 11. Added further, within a short span of time i.e. with 20 minutes, PW.12, who got the message from hospital, went to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, which is 15 kms away from the respondent police station, and recorded the statement of the deceased Jawahar is also doubtful. 12. According to the prosecution, PW.12 originally, registered a case under Section 307 and subsequently, on the death of the deceased, converted to Section 302 IPC but PW.12 at the time of chief examination, nowhere has stated that there was originally a case under Section 307 IPC and at no point of time, he has spoken about the case for Section 307 IPC. Both the F.I.Rs in the case registered under Section 307 IPC and altered F.I.R. for section 302 IPC has reached the Magistrate at 4.00 p.m, on the very next day. Therefore, it is quite clear that in order to fortify the prosecution case, it was shown as if originally a case was registered for Section 307 IPC and as if subsequently, it was altered for Section 302 IPC. 13. In the instant case, even assuming that the statement of Ex.P.1 was true, according to Ex.P.3 Accident Register Copy issued by PW.8 Doctor, the deceased was attacked by a known person whereas according to the prosecution, A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased and according to PW.1, A.1 and A.3 attacked the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution could not fix liability on any one or any of the accused in the absence of a clear case. Under the circumstances, it is highly unsafe to fix liability on any one or any of the accused/appellants. In the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 14. Under the circumstances, it is highly unsafe to fix liability on any one or any of the accused/appellants. In the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 14. In the result, the judgment of the trial court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants/A.1 and A.3 are directed to be released forthwith unless they are required in connection with any other case. It is reported that the appellant/A.2 is on bail. The bail bond executed by A.2 stands cancelled.