JUDGMENT Ms. R. MALA, J. This appeal arises out of the Judgment in S.C. No. 34 of 2007 dated 30.10.2007 convicting the appellant/accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and RI for 3 years and also imposing fine. 2. Briefly stated case of prosecution is as follows:- Both deceased Vellaisamy and accused Muthaiah are brothers. PW3- is the wife of deceased. PW1- is their son. Deceased Vellaisamy and accused owned 2.50 acres of land along with pump set on the eastern side of Krishnankovil-Madurai main road. Accused allegedly having grudge that a larger extent was allotted to Vellaisamy in the partition. 3. Deceased has harvested onion in his field and the harvested onion was kept in the field. On the night of 26.8.2006 - 9.00 p.m., deceased Vellaisamy went to the field for watching over the harvested onion kept in the field. On 27.8.2006, Vijayalakshmi, daughter of accused had fixed date to go to new house () for which Vijayalakshmi had arranged for light and mike set. 4. On the night of 26.8.2006, because of light, PW1 could not sleep well. On the wee hours of 27.8.2006 - 2. A.M., PW1 woke up and saw his junior paternal uncle (accused) taking drinks. PW1 saw the accused proceeding towards the field. Suspecting that accused might steal the harvested onion, PW1 followed him and went to the fields. Accused beat Vellaisamy who was lying in the field. PW1 hid himself behind a plant and saw accused attacking his father with MO1-stick. Without making noise, PW1 went away from the place and when he again went to the place of occurrence, both accused and deceased Vellaisamy were found missing. 5. PW1 immediately went to the village and informed to PW2-Paulpandi about the occurrence. PWs.1 and 2 went and saw Vellaisamy dead with bleeding injuries on the eastern side of Krishnankovil-Madurai main road-on the diversion road, where culvert work was being undertaken. 6. After informing PW3-Pappa, wife of the deceased Vellaisamy, at A.M. PW1 went to Krishnankovil Police Station and lodged Exhibit P1-Complaint. In Exhibit P1-Complaint, PW2 had also signed as witness. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, a case in Cr.No. 254 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 IPC [Exhibit P-16]. 7. Exhibit P16-FIR was received in Magistrate Court at 1.25 p.m. on 27.8.2006. In Exhibit P1-Complaint, PW2 had also signed as witness. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, a case in Cr.No. 254 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 IPC [Exhibit P-16]. 7. Exhibit P16-FIR was received in Magistrate Court at 1.25 p.m. on 27.8.2006. On receipt of FIR (Exhibit P-16), PW14-Inspector of Police had taken up investigation. On the morning of 27.8.2006 - 8.00-9.00 a.m., PW14 inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P4-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-17-Rough plan. Witnesses were examined and inquest was held on the body of deceased Vellaisamy. Exhibit P18 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, body was sent to Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur for autopsy. From the place where body was lying, PW14 recovered casurina stick (MO2); bloodstained lungi (MO3); bloodstained mud (MO7) and sample mud (MO8) under Exhibit P-9- Mahazar. From the field of Pandian which is about 75 feet away from the land, MO11- bloodstain was recovered under Exhibit P-7- Mahazar. From the place of occurrence, PW14 had also seized MO10 (series)- bloodstained Thennanthattai piece under Exhibit P-8-Mahazar. 8. Based on the requisition from the Inspector of Police, PW7- Dr.Pushpalatha conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Vellaisamy and noted the following injuries:- A lacerated wound 2 x 1cm bone depth above the left ankle. A lacerated wound 2 x 2cm bone depth on the left thigh. Deformity left knee. A lacerated wound 1 x 1cm bone depth on the left upper arm. Deformity left elbow. A lacerated wound 2 x ½ x ½ cm on the left cheek. A lacerated wound 2 x ½ x ½ cm on the left eyebrow. Deformity Right forearm Abrasion 10 x 10cm on the neck over both scapular region. PW7 Dr.Pushpalatha had also noticed the following fractures:- fracture of both bones left leg; fracture of left forearm; fracture of dislocation left knee; fracture of left humerus; fracture of dislocation left elbow; fracture of both bone right forearm. PW7 opined that deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and issued Exhibit P-3 post-mortem certificate. Exhibit P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. After postmortem, MOs.4 to 5 apparels were seized from the body. 9. PW14-Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 27.8.2006 at 6.00 p.m. in the presence of PW8- and Village Assistant Subramanian. On being interrogated, accused had voluntarily given confession statement which led to recovery of MO1-Stick and MO6-Lungi. Exhibit P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. After postmortem, MOs.4 to 5 apparels were seized from the body. 9. PW14-Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 27.8.2006 at 6.00 p.m. in the presence of PW8- and Village Assistant Subramanian. On being interrogated, accused had voluntarily given confession statement which led to recovery of MO1-Stick and MO6-Lungi. Based upon the requisition from PW14, seized materials were sent for chemical analysis. PW15 took up further investigation. On receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of due investigation, PW15 filed final report on 8.11.2006 against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 10. To substantiate the Charges against the accused in the trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and Exhibits P-1 to 18 and MOs.1 to 13 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstance. Accused denied all of them and stated that a false case is foisted against him. 11. Upon analysis of evidence, learned Sessions Judge held that evidence of PW1 is credit worthy and acceptable. Referring to (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 190, learned Sessions Judge held that merely because PW1 had not gone to rescue of his father, his evidence cannot be disbelieved. Insofar as delay, the learned Sessions Judge held that PWs.1 and 2 might have searched for the body in the night and after finding the body near the diversion road, they have gone to the Police Station at 6.00 a.m. to lodge a complaint and delay has been satisfactorily explained and on those findings, learned Sessions Judge held that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 12. The learned appellant counsel would contend that P.W.1 is none other than the son of the deceased Vellaichamy; there is a longstanding enmity between the deceased family and the accused; due to the enmity only, P.W.1 has given complaint. He further contended that prosecution case is only based on the eye witness of P.W.1, but, he is not an eye witness; subsequently, he was included as an eye witness; there is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence and hence the death of the deceased is only an accidental and not homicidal. 13. He further contended that prosecution case is only based on the eye witness of P.W.1, but, he is not an eye witness; subsequently, he was included as an eye witness; there is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence and hence the death of the deceased is only an accidental and not homicidal. 13. He further contended that there is a delay in registering the case and despatching the same; the distance between the police station and Court is 8 k.m.; but the first information report Exhibit P-16 reached the Court at 1.25 p.m. and hence it is clear that Exhibit P-16 has been created after inquest; P.W.1 has also admitted that he has suspected one Selvam. In such circumstances, P.W.1 will not be an eye witness; hence, benefits of doubt to be given to the appellant/accused and he is entitled for acquittal. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1, who is none other than the son of deceased, is an eye witness; his evidence is cogent and natural and reliable; the motive for the commission of offence has been proved by way of examining the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4; P.W.7 Dr.Pushpalatha has deposed that the death of the deceased is a homicidal and it is not an accident; in respect of time, the illiterate persons in a rustic village, they are not having time sense; so, that to be ignored; since the case is based on direct eye witness, the Trial Court accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 I.P.C.; so the trial Court considered all the aspects in a proper prospective and came to the correct conclusion that there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence and warrants no interference. 15. Now, we have to decide whether the trial Court's conclusion that the death of the deceased is a homicidal is correct?. 16. The learned counsel would mainly contend that the death of the deceased is not a homicidal and that it is only an accidental. He relied upon the evidence of P.W.7. While considering the evidence of P.W.7-Dr. Pushpalatha and Exhibit P-3, postmortem certificate, the ninth injury is only an abrasion. The other injuries 1,2,4,6 and 7 are only lacerations. 16. The learned counsel would mainly contend that the death of the deceased is not a homicidal and that it is only an accidental. He relied upon the evidence of P.W.7. While considering the evidence of P.W.7-Dr. Pushpalatha and Exhibit P-3, postmortem certificate, the ninth injury is only an abrasion. The other injuries 1,2,4,6 and 7 are only lacerations. P.W.7 has also noticed the fracture of both bones in left leg, fracture of left fore arm, fracture dislocation left knee, fracture left humur, fracture dislocation left elbow and fracture both bone right fore arm, P.W.7-Dr. Pushpalatha has stated that there is no head injury on the body of the deceased. In our considered view there is no merit, the argument advanced by the learned appellant counsel that the injuries caused only in accident, since the body has been found near national highway, where the diversion for construction of bridge, which was mentioned in Exhibit P-17. If the vehicle has dashed against the person, he would be thrown out and naturally he will sustain head injury. P.W.7 Dr. Pushpalatha has given a candid admission that the deceased had no head injury. When, P.W.7 was in witness box, a suggestion was posed to her that if a vehicle has dashed against the person on the left hand side such injuries are possible. But, the prosecution has not got any clarification in respect of her cross examination that if vehicle dashed against the person and he will be thrown out, certainly that person will get head injury. The prudent man knows that if any vehicle dashes against a person naturally, he would be thrown out and certainly he would sustain head injury, whether it is simple or grievous. But, no clarification was got from P.W.7. If a person lying in right side, if anybody attacks on his left side body, he will receive injury only on his left side body. The injuries found mentioned in Exhibit P-3 were caused only when the deceased was lying on the cot. Here the occurrence has taken place at night. So, the contention that death of the deceased was due to an accident is not an acceptable one. P.W.7-Dr.Puspalatha has stated that the injuries caused are possible while he was assaulted by big wooden log. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the evidence of P.W.1. Here the occurrence has taken place at night. So, the contention that death of the deceased was due to an accident is not an acceptable one. P.W.7-Dr.Puspalatha has stated that the injuries caused are possible while he was assaulted by big wooden log. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the evidence of P.W.1. In his evidence, he has deposed that his father was assaulted by neem wooden log. But, M.O.1 is only a tamarind wooden log and the same was not shown to P.W.7. So, it is clear that the injuries were caused by M.O1 only. In such circumstances, We are of the considered view that death of the deceased is only a homicidal one and not due to an accident. 17. Now, we have to consider whether P.W.1's oral evidence, who is the son of the deceased is reliable. For analysing evidence of P.W.1, we feel it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court AIR 1985 SC 48 : (1985) SCC (Cr) 105 : (1985) 1 SCC 505 . The relevant portion is as follows: "While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against, the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. 18. In the light of the above principle, oral evidence of P.W.1 is to be analysed. Admittedly, there was longstanding enmity between the family of accused and deceased in sharing the properties. P.W.1 is the sole eye-witness. When there is enmity and witnesses are closely related to the deceased, their evidence has to be scrutinised with care and caution. Whenever the Court has to appreciate the evidence of interested witnesses, Court will have to be careful in weighing such evidence. 19. P.W.1 is the sole eye-witness. When there is enmity and witnesses are closely related to the deceased, their evidence has to be scrutinised with care and caution. Whenever the Court has to appreciate the evidence of interested witnesses, Court will have to be careful in weighing such evidence. 19. While evaluating the evidence of P.W.1, he has deposed that the deceased had gone to his onion field for watching over the harvested onion; then at 2.00 a.m., the accused left from the house and told his son-in-law that to go to his field; P.W.1 further deposed that he was under impression that the accused might steal the harvested onion, he followed him and witnessed that his father has been assaulted by the accused. As per version of P.W.1, he kept quiet and hidden behind the bush. If really any person had seen that his father was assaulted by anyone, certainly he would not have remained quiet till his father was attacked by that person and dragged from the place of occurrence to near the bridge, where the body was lying. P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that he was hid behind the kanagambaram flower bush and witnessed the occurrence in the light shed by tubelight, burning nearby. But, in Exhibit P-17 Rough Sketch, there is no Kanagambaram flower bush in the scene of occurrence and no tube light was in the near vicinity of the occurrence. 20. P.W.2, who is none other than the relative of the deceased, has stated that after the occurrence, he saw P.W.1 and then, they had gone to the place of occurrence for searching the deceased body and accused and later they saw the deceased near the bridge. 21. The learned counsel relied upon the decision (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 3 : (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 378 and contended that P.W.1 was not a natural witness as per his own showing and he had animosity against the accused and hence his presence at the scene of occurrence was by a sheer chance. 22. P.W.1, in his evidence, stated that there is a property dispute between his father and the accused. A panchayat has also been conducted. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 26.8.2006, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased had gone to his onion field to keep watch over the harvested onion. 22. P.W.1, in his evidence, stated that there is a property dispute between his father and the accused. A panchayat has also been conducted. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 26.8.2006, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased had gone to his onion field to keep watch over the harvested onion. On 27.8.2006 morning, there was a house warming ceremony of the daughter of the accused. Because of the same, there was movement of relatives in that house and so, he was not able to sleep. When he woke up, he saw the accused, leaving the house and told his son-in-law that he is going to the field. Hence, P.W.1 suspected that the accused might steal the harvested onion and he also followed him and later he witnessed the incident. 23. It is pertinent to note that the deceased aged about 50 years was lying on the cot and at that time, the accused, about 45 years had assaulted the deceased and young adult like P.W.1, aged about 20 was a silent spectator is quite unnatural. Since the victim is his father, on seeing his father attacked, P.W.1 would have certainly gone to the rescue of his father. It is also pertinent to note that while he witnessed the occurrence, he left the place of occurrence and gone to his village and he saw P.W.2 and then rushed along with him to the place of occurrence and at that time, the deceased and accused have disappeared. He stated in his evidence as follows: If P.W.1 really witnessed the occurrence, he may very well know that the accused has dragged the deceased for nearly 150 metres away from the scene of occurrence. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was the only eye witness who was available in the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Since he was afraid that he might be attacked by his junior paternal uncle, he has hidden behind the flower bush. It is true human behaviour varies from person to person. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person, who witnesses a serious crime, reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person, who witnesses a serious crime, reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the sport as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the counter-attacking the assailants. Each one reacts in his special way even in similar circumstances. But, here, P.W.1 is none other than the son of the deceased. He has deposed that being afraid that the accused might also assault him, he had hidden behind the Kanagambaram flower bush and witnessed the occurrence. But, after sometime, he came to know that his father and the accused had disappeared from the scene of occurrence. So, we are of the considered opinion that the above said story is a concocted version and the same is an unbelievable one. 24. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that P.W.1 himself deposed that he witnessed the incident that the accused has assaulted the deceased and he left the place; later when he had gone to that place, his father and the accused had disappeared. If really he has witnessed the incident as per the version of the prosecution that the accused had dragged the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the place, where the body has been found. This shows that the presence of P.W.1 in the place of occurrence, is doubtful. P.W.1, in his cross examination, fairly conceded as This shows that if really, he was an eye witness, what prompted him to give a complaint against one Selvam. Hence, it has clearly proved that P.W.1 was not an eye witness. 25. The following points indicate that P.W.1 could not have been an eye witness. (i) P.W.1 had suspected one Selvam, who might have committed murder of his father. (ii) As already discussed, if a prudent man that too a son would not have hidden behind Kanagambaram flower bush and witnessed the occurrence, when his father was attacked by the accused. 25. The following points indicate that P.W.1 could not have been an eye witness. (i) P.W.1 had suspected one Selvam, who might have committed murder of his father. (ii) As already discussed, if a prudent man that too a son would not have hidden behind Kanagambaram flower bush and witnessed the occurrence, when his father was attacked by the accused. (iii) As per plan-Exhibit P-17, near to vicinity of the scene of occurrence, no tube light and no kanagambaram flower bush were there, since the occurrence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. (iv) It is unbelievable that the occurrence had taken place in the Onion field, but the body was found near the bridge and how a single person could have dragged the body from the place of occurrence to nearly 150 metres. (v) Except abrasion on neck over both scapular region, no other abrasions was found. If a person has been dragged from a place to other place, certainly there should be more abrasions all over the body. Moreover, the shirt of the deceased has been recovered, but the same was not torn. It contains bloodstain only. (vi) P.W.1 is a village man. He must know the difference between the tamarind wooden log and neem wooden log. In his evidence, he had stated that MO1 is a neem stick. But, MO1 is not a neem stick, it is only a tamarind stick. (vii) Blood stained earth has been taken from the place of occurrence and the land of Pandyan and they were marked as MO7 and 11 respectively and the same were sent for chemical analysis through the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same were marked as Items Nos.3 and 4 by the chemical analyst. In the chemical analysis report, Exhibit P-13, it was stated that detected blood on each of the above items 1,2 and 5 to 9 but not on either item 3 or 4. Considering the above mentioned points, we are of the considered view that the presence of P.W.1 in the place of occurrence at the time of commission of offence is highly doubtful. 26. That apart, there is a delay in preferring complaint. In Exhibit P-1 and as per the evidence of P.W.1, the incident had taken place at 2.00 a.m. on the wee hours of 27.8.2006. 26. That apart, there is a delay in preferring complaint. In Exhibit P-1 and as per the evidence of P.W.1, the incident had taken place at 2.00 a.m. on the wee hours of 27.8.2006. But, the complaint has been registered at 6.30 a.m. The case has been registered in crime No. 254 of 2006 under Sections 302 I.P.C and the first information report Exhibit P-16 was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate only at 1.25 p.m. on 27.8.2006. The distance between the police station and the Judicial Magistrate Court is only 8 kms. But, inquest has been conducted at about 9.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. on 27.8.2006. In such circumstances, Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-16-F.I.R. and Exhibit P-18-Inquest report came to light that after conducting inquest only, Exhibit P-16 F.I.R has been received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 1.25 p.m. Even though the distance between the police station and the Court is only 8 kms, the delay of 6 hours for reaching the F.I.R. to Court has not been properly explained by the prosecution. 27. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the arguments of the learned appellant counsel that only after inquest, F.I.R was prepared and then only the same reached the Court. There is no explanation on the side of the prosecution for the inordinate delay of 6 hours, where the distance between the police station and Court is only 8 kms. Because of the longstanding enmity between the family of the deceased and accused, Exhibit P1 complaint obtained from P.W.1. So, all these above points cumulatively raise serious doubts about the version of P.W.1. Serious doubts as to the presence of P.W.1, at the time of occurrence. We are of considered view that it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.1 as a sole eye witness and come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty under Sections 302 I.P.C. 28. The learned appellant counsel would rely upon the decision (2004) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1051 and contended that P.W.1 is a sheer chance witness, whose evidence should have been evaluated with great care and caution as per the decision AIR 1997 SC 1160 : (1997) 4 SCC 192 : (1997) SCC (Cr) 538 "a cautious and close scrutiny" of the evidence of chance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court. He also relied upon the decision in Anil Prakash Shukla v. Arvind Shukla (supra) and contended that as regards the evidence of the sole eyewitness, P.W.1 was not a natural witnesses as per his own showing and he had animosity against the accused. His presence at the scene of occurrence was by a sheer chance. While considering the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that P.W.1 was not an eye witnesses. He was concocted as a witness for the purpose of this case since they are having long standing enmity with the accused. 29. Even though according to the case of prosecution, the death of the deceased is a homicidal, the same was not proved that the deceased alone caused such injuries to the deceased and committed the offence. Even though P.W.12 was examined to corroborate P.W.1's witness for searching the body of the deceased, it is unbelievable one. P.W.3 is the wife of deceased and she was not an eye witness. P.W.4's evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 is the relative of the deceased and his evidence is also not helpful to the case of prosecution. 30. Upon analysis of the evidence, we find even though the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased is a homicidal one since the case is based only on the sole eyewitness of P.W.1, whose evidence does not inspire our confidence as trustworthy. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant/accused is guilty under Sections 302 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the accused/appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. Since the appellant is acquitted under Sections 302 I.P.C, he is also acquitted under Section201 I.P.C. 31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.34 of 2007 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted. The accused is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded. Appeal allowed.