Judgment : M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Cuddalore made in S.C.No.126 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 506(i) IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 2 years R.I. under Section 506(i) IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) The accused/appellant is the son of the deceased. On 18. 2006 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer along with the others was measuring the landed property at Mettukuppam village, he heard a distressing cry and immediately, he saw the spot, where the accused attacked his father and when the same was questioned, the accused replied that it is family matter and others should not interfere. This was witnessed not only by P.W.7, but also by P.Ws.1,3,4,5,6 and also 11,12 and 13 and as a result of which, the deceased died. b) At about 18.00 hours on the same day, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.9 complaint with the respondent police. On the strength of Ex.P.9, P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.257 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.10, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. c) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.7, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch. On 18. 2006, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Panruti and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.12, the inquest report. Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy. d) P.W.2, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.2, the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P.4, final opinion, wherein she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Further the internal organs of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Laboratory and the report was marked as Ex.P.3, stating that there was no poisonous substance on the dead body. e) Pending investigation, P.W.15 arrested the accused at about 12.30 hours in the presence of P.W.8 and the other witness. The accused came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.5, pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.1, teak wooden log, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then, the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Department pursuant to the requisition given through the concerned Court. Ex.P.17, Chemical report and Ex.P.18, the Serologists report were received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report. 3. The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 18 exhibits and 4 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellant. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution though examined nearly about 9 witnesses as occurrence witnesses, all witnesses have turned hostile, except P.W.7; that it was not P.W.7 who gave the report; that according to P.W.7, he was actually measuring the land along with the other witnesses at about 4.00 p.m. on 18. 2006 and he heard the noise and also found the accused attacking his father and he intervened, but the accused did not pay heed to his words and that he has seen the occurrence; that the evidence of this witness should have been rejected by the trial court for the simple reason that though he claimed to be an eyewitness, as Village Administrative Officer, he should have brought the same to the notice of the police immediately, but he has not done so; that even after he came to know about the death next day, he has not given any complaint; that though the prosecution claimed that he was interrogated by the police and his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 18. 2006, the same has reached the court along with the charge sheet on 12. 2006 and thus, it would be quite clear that the statement was prepared in order to suit the prosecution case. 5. Added further the learned Senior counsel that while number of witnesses were present according to the prosecution, no one has come forward to state about the occurrence and the reason being they have not actually seen the occurrence; that since P.W.7 happened to be the Village Administrative Officer, his service was taken to sustain the prosecution case and under these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to rely on his evidence; that further, the group test did not tally as per the Chemical analysis and even assuming that there was recovery of M.O.1 weapon of crime pursuant to the confessional statement, the mere recovery by itself would not be sufficient to sustain conviction and under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court. 6. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant beat his father with teak wooden log at about 4.00 p.m. on 18. 2006 and caused his death. Though the prosecution marched 9 witnesses as eyewitnesses, 8 witnesses have turned hostile. The only witness P.W.7, who was the Village Administrative Officer, has deposed in favour of the prosecution. According to him, he witnessed the occurrence when he was measuring the land along with others and he immediately warned the accused not to do so. Though the prosecution marched 9 witnesses as eyewitnesses, 8 witnesses have turned hostile. The only witness P.W.7, who was the Village Administrative Officer, has deposed in favour of the prosecution. According to him, he witnessed the occurrence when he was measuring the land along with others and he immediately warned the accused not to do so. If to be so, as a Village Administrative Officer, he is expected to bring the same to the notice of the police immediately, but he has not done so and he has also kept mum. Further, he came to know about the death of the deceased on the very next day. Even then, he did not approach the police to give any statement. For the first time, his statement was recorded by the police on 18. 2006. He was not even examined as inquest witness. Though his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 18. 2006, it has reached the court only on 12. 2006 along with the charge sheet. Hence it cast a doubt on the evidence of P.W.7 that he has witnessed the occurrence. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that when all the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, whether the court can rest its decision on the solitary and uncorroborated testimony of P.W.7, which in the considered opinion of the court would be highly unsafe when the other attendant suspicious circumstances are looked into. 8. So far as the evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the arrest, confessional statement and the recovery of M.O.1, teak wooden log is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the court that the recovery of weapon of crime, namely the teak wooden log, was subjected to chemical analysis, but it dit not stand the scientific test. Apart from that, even assuming that M.O.1 has been recovered following the confessional statement made by the accused, the same by itself would not be sufficient pointing to the guilt or complicity of the offender. Under these circumstances, it can be well stated that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the view taken by the trial court was erroneous and hence the judgment of the trial court has got to be made undone by upsetting the same. Under these circumstances, it can be well stated that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the view taken by the trial court was erroneous and hence the judgment of the trial court has got to be made undone by upsetting the same. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. 9. The Court records its appreciation on the Senior Counsel of his assistance in rendering the above judgment as Amicus Curiae.