Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment in S.C. No. 259 of 2005 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Kancheepuram, convicting the appellant/Second accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: A1 to A3 and the deceased were associates. In the village, one Elumalai and Kumutha fell in love with each other. Objections were raised by the boy’s side. A1 was supporting the boy side, while the deceased was supporting the girl side. Thus, A1 and the deceased were in inimical terms. On the date of occurrence i.e., on 12. 2001, when P.W.1 was sitting and chatting with one Ramalingam, along with the deceased, four persons came in TVS Suzuki motorbike and were proceeding towards Railway Station Road and they stopped the vehicle under a Tamarind Tree and talked for some time and they returned on the same way and went behind the School. The deceased disassociated with the accused and went near a bush. Thereafter, on hearing the distress cry, P.W.1 rushed over there and saw the deceased being attacked by all the three accused indiscriminately. P.W.1 raised alarm and on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, neighbours gathered. On seeing the occurrence, P.W.1 threw stones on the accused. All the three accused fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 went nearby the deceased and found the deceased Mari dead. He proceeded to the respondent-Police Station, where the Head Constable by name Pushparaj was on duty. He gave Exhibit P1 report, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No. 338 of 2001 at about 12.15 a.m. The printed F.I.R. Exhibit P-27 along with the complaint Exhibit P-1 were sent to Court. 3. P.W.16 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up investigation, prepared observation mahazar Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-28 rough sketch. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Inquest Report Exhibit P-29. The dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.16 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up investigation, prepared observation mahazar Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-28 rough sketch. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Inquest Report Exhibit P-29. The dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.3, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram, conducted autopsy and has given his opinion in Exhibit P-11 post mortem certificate that the deceased Mari died of shock and haemorrhage due to the grievous injuries sustained around the head. 4. Pending investigation, the investigating officer came to know that the second accused and the third accused have surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. He applied for police custody and the same was ordered. When they were interrogated, both the accused Nos. 2 and 3 gave confession statement and the same was recorded. The admissible part of the statement of A2 was marked as Exhibit P-8 and the admissible part of the statement of A3 was marked as Exhibit P-6. Consequent upon the same, M.O.1 series-Knives were recovered under Exhibits P-7 and P-9-Mahazar. The accused were sent for judicial remand. 5. The first accused was also taken to police custody and when he was interrogated, he voluntarily gave confession statement and the same was recorded. The weapon was recovered from him under a cover of mahazar. Thereafter, accused was sent to Judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and the dead body were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic department in Exhibit P-13 is the serologist’s report and Exhibit P-31 is the chemical report. Since P.W. 16 went on transfer, further investigation was done by P.W.17. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer P.W.17 filed the final report against accused No. 1 to 13. 6. The case was committed to Court of Sessions and pending trial, the first accused died. The trial continued as against the appellant/second accused and the third accused. 7. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the Trial Court, prosecution examined-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 17. Exhibits P-1 to P-32 and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them and stated that a false case was foisted against them. 8. 7. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the Trial Court, prosecution examined-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 17. Exhibits P-1 to P-32 and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them and stated that a false case was foisted against them. 8. Taking us through the evidence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the eye witness P.W.1-Sathya in his evidence had stated that occurrence had taken place at about 11.30 a.m. and he lodged Exhibit P-1-complaint at 12.15 p.m., whereas, according to P.W.2-Village administrative Officer (VAO), even at 9.00 a.m., he came to know that a person had been murdered and when P.W.2 went to the scene of occurrence, he saw the Inspector of Police there. Pointing out variation as to time of occurrence between P.Ws. 1 and 2, learned counsel for the appellants/second accused contended that the discrepancy as to the variation of occurrence stated by P.Ws. 1 to 2 would arise serious doubts on prosecution case. 9. Drawing our attention to judgment in C.A. No. 868 of 2006, the learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that pointing out the variation third accused was already acquitted by another Division Bench of this Court. In the time of occurrence, it was further argued that in view of variation as to time of occurrence, the evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Learned counsel urged that the appellant/second accused is also similarly placed as the third accused and that conviction against the appellant cannot be sustained. 10. We have heard Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor (i/c). Making a distinction between third accused and the present appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor persuaded us that the variation with regard to the time of occurrence could not be taken as a material variation so as to affect the prosecution case. 11. Drawing our attention to Exhibit P-14-Test Identification Parade proceedings, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that identification of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the Test Identification Parade is clearly indicative that the prosecution proceeded on the right direction and identified accused No. 2 and 3 and it lends assurance to the evidence P.W.1 and the prosecution version. 12. We have carefully examined the evidence, materials on record, rival submissions. We have also perused the judgment in Crl. 2 and 3 in the Test Identification Parade is clearly indicative that the prosecution proceeded on the right direction and identified accused No. 2 and 3 and it lends assurance to the evidence P.W.1 and the prosecution version. 12. We have carefully examined the evidence, materials on record, rival submissions. We have also perused the judgment in Crl. A. No. 868 of 2006, dated 19. 2008, pertaining to third accused. 13. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution case rests entirely on the evidence of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 12. 2001 – 11 a.m., he along with one Ramalingam, were sitting and chatting in front of the house and they saw the accused and the deceased Mari with four persons and all of them went near the Tamarind Tree and were talking for about 30 minutes. P.W.1 further stated that deceased Mari dissociated from the accused and went near the bush there. Appellant and other accused followed him and attacked the deceased. The accused inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. As the case of prosecution rests on the solitary testimony of P.W.1’s evidence, it is to be scrutinised with care and caution. P.W.1’s evidence is to be tested for its consistency and coherency with other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 14. P.W.2-VAO of Thenneri Village who is witness to the observation Mahazar and the recovery of material objects from the scene of occurrence. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that even at 9.00 a.m., he has got an information that a person has been murdered and a body has been lying. P.W.2 further stated that he went to the place of occurrence and he saw more than 100 persons gathered there and he also saw the Inspector of Police there. Going by the evidence of P.W.2, occurrence must have been prior to 9.00 a.m., which is in total contradiction with the version of P.W.1. Variation as to the time of occurrence between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 VAO is irreconcilable. 15. Drawing our attention to the Test Identification Parade proceedings, learned Public Prosecutor contended that P.W.1 was able to identify both the accused and such identification of the accused lends assurance to the prosecution version that prosecution has proceeded on its right direction. Variation as to the time of occurrence between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 VAO is irreconcilable. 15. Drawing our attention to the Test Identification Parade proceedings, learned Public Prosecutor contended that P.W.1 was able to identify both the accused and such identification of the accused lends assurance to the prosecution version that prosecution has proceeded on its right direction. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that having regard to the identification of the accused by P.W.1, any variation as to time of occurrence would not affect the prosecution case. 16. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. They were taken into custody and kept in police custody for four days from 20.12.2001 to 212. 2001. Test Identification Parade was conducted on 11. 2002. There was time interval of about one month from the time of their surrender and holding of Test Identification Parade. In his evidence, Investigating Officer-P.W.17 has stated that after the accused were taken to custody, they were taken to Wallajah town. When the accused were in Police custody, photographs were taken and possibilities of P.W.1 seeing the accused, cannot be ruled out and therefore, identification of the accused by P.W.1 may not be of much significance. In any event, identification of the appellant and the other accuse No. 3 by P.W.1 cannot be taken as a substantive evidence to base the conviction. 17. After taking the accused to police custody, on being interrogated, accused No. 2 and 3 have voluntarily given confession statement. Confession statement of accused led to recovery of M.O.1-Series of knives. Though the material objects were seized, only blood stained clothes recovered from the body of the deceased Mari were sent for chemical analysis. Knives (M.O.1 series) seized were not sent for chemical analysis. There is no plausible reason for not sending the M.O.1-series of knives for chemical analysis. 18. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment in Crl. A. No. 868 of 2006, were in the third accused-Sivaram @ Seeman was acquitted by another Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 19. 2008. Pointing out the material variation in the time of occurrence in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the other Division Bench has given benefit of doubt to accused No. 3 and set aside the conviction. 2008. Pointing out the material variation in the time of occurrence in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the other Division Bench has given benefit of doubt to accused No. 3 and set aside the conviction. In our considered view, appellant/accused No. 2 is also placed on similar footing as that of accused No. 3, the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 868 of 2006. 19. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the other Division Bench in Crl. A. 868 of 2006, dated 19. 2008. 20. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the appellant/second accused beyond reasonable doubt. Serious doubts arise as to the prosecution version, and the benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant. 21. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellant/Second accused is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond, if any executed by appellant/A.2 shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by the appellant/A.2 is ordered to be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.