Judgment :- Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 111. 2003, made in Criminal Appeal No.56/03, on the file of Sessions Judge Nagapattinam, the petitioners who are arrayed as A1 to A3 have preferred this Revision. .2. It is seen that the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused in C.C.No.149 of 2001, on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam. As per the prosecution, case, on 20.05.1999 at about 9.15 a.m., due to previous enmity, the petitioner/accused with the common intention to commit the crime, while accordingly the petitioners 2 and 3, who are arrayed as A2 and A3 held the victim, and the first petitioner/A1 stabbed the victim in his abdomen/stomach and thereby the first petitioner A1 committed the offence punishable under sections 326 and 506(2) I.P.C. and petitioners 2 and 3 committed offence punishable under sections 341, 326 read with 109 IPC. 3. On the side of the prosecution seven witnesses were examined the complaint dated 20.05.1999 has been marked as Ex.P1 and the wound certificate dated 20.05.1999 issued in the name of Mr.Rajasekar (PW2) has been marked as Ex.P2. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had convicted the A1 under sections 326 IPC and sentence him to undergo two years RI and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo further period of three months imprisonment. The petitioners 2 and 3 who are arrayed as A2 and A3 were convicted under Sections 326 read with 109 IPC and sentenced to under go two years imprisonment array and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo a further period of three months imprisonment. The petitioners 2 and 3 who are arrayed as A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 341 and sentenced to undergo one week imprisonment (S.I.) and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- with default sentence. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction the accused persons preferred appeal before the Session Court, Nagapattinam. The learned Session Judge, Nagapattinam in C.A.No.56/03, by judgment dated 111. 2003 modified the conviction and sentence whereby the first petitioner A1 was convicted under Section 324 IPC and other petitioners 2 and 3 / A2 and A3 were convicted under Sections 324 read with 109 IPC and each of them were directed to undergo one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo three months imprisonment. Aggrieved by which the revision has been preferred by the petitioner / accused. .6. Mr. K.G.Salaskhan, learned counsel appointed through legal Aid appearing for the Petitioners A1 to A3 contended that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, as per the procedure established by law. According to the learned counsel, the complaint given by the defacto complainant on 20.05.1999 was marked as Ex.P1 and the wound certificate issued by the Doctor was marked as Ex.P2 through PW7. However, there is no evidence to show that the investigating officer had visited the scene of occurrence. Admittedly, the prosecution has not marked any observation mahazar to show that the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared any observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Similarly, to show the scene of occurrence no sketch prepared by the investigating officer was marked. No material object was recovered either at the scene of occurrence or from the accused persons and not even a seizure mahazar was marked before the trial Court. 7. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner even an accident register copy (AR copy) was not marked as a prosecution document for the reasons best knwon to the prosecution. Only a wound certificate signed by the Doctor has been marked. Further, the FIR prepared and sent to the Judicial Magistrate was not marked before the trial Court as one of the prosecution document. As per the FIR the occurrence had taken place on 20.05.99 at 9.15 a.m. and on the same day, the respondent police received the intimation. After receiving the complaint, FIR was registered by the police. However, the FIR copy filed before the Judicial Magistrate, confined the date of occurrence on 27.05.1999. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has established, the case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the said offence in the manner on the alleged date and time as stated by the prosecution and there is no reason to discard the credibility of the witnesses produced on the side of the prosecution. 9. Mr.M.Kumanan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that Ex.P2 is only a AR Copy, since the printed form was not available, the accident register copy was written in a white paper. 9. Mr.M.Kumanan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that Ex.P2 is only a AR Copy, since the printed form was not available, the accident register copy was written in a white paper. The same has been prepared and sent by the Doctor with seal and therefore it cannot be eschewed. 10. I have heard the submissions and perused the evidence available on record. .11. As per the prosecution case, the date of occurrence was on 20.05.1999, but the FIR the date is only 27.05.1999. The inordinate delay of morethan six days has not been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. Further, the alleged weapon used for committing the offence has not been recovered and marked as a material object, even the alleged blood stained clothes were not recovered and marked for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 12. As per Article 21 of the Constitution of India no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law, which is a constitutional protection. In this case, only two documents have been marked on the side of the prosecution, one is the complaint, Ex.P1 and the other document is Ex.P2, wound certificate of PW2. No other document has been marked. In the instant case, as per record the investigating officer had neither inspected the scene of occurrence nor prepared any observation mahazar or a sketch showing the place of occurrence and there is no satisfactory reason for the non recovery of Material Object, either the alleged blood stained Knife or other material objects and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the petitioners/accused beyond reasonable doubt. .13. This court normally would not interfere with a concurrent judgment of the Courts below unless the findings are perverse. A finding can be construed as perverse, when it is against the evidence available on record or without any supporting evidence to substantiate the finding. The inordinate delay of more than six days in registering the FIR has not been explained satisfactorily, which is fatal to the prosecution case. Further there is no reason for the investigating officer for not inspecting the scene of occurrence and not preparing observation magazer and sketch. No material objects were marked in the case, though there were material objects available as per the prosecution case. Further there is no reason for the investigating officer for not inspecting the scene of occurrence and not preparing observation magazer and sketch. No material objects were marked in the case, though there were material objects available as per the prosecution case. Without considering the vital aspects the Courts below have erroneously held that the alleged charges have been proved against the petitioners/accused. Accident Register copy, otherwise known as AR Copy is different from the wound certificate. AR Copy shall contain a serial number as per the entries made in the concerned Register, hence normally it cannot be prepared subsequently with an earlier date, whereas the same is possible in a wound certificate. In the said circumstances, the non-production of the wound certificate creates serious doubt on the prosecution case. However the vital legal and factual aspects were not considered by the Court below properly. Hence, the Criminal Revision has to be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are to be set aside. In the result, the revision stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are set aside. .The petitioners are set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is required in connection with some other case. 14. Mr.M.G.Salaskhan, learned counsel appointed from the Legal Aid Panel, defended the case of 2nd petitioner / A2 in an excellent manner and he is entitled to a remuneration of Rs.3,000/- as per Rules.