Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5261 (MAD)

Kanagaraj v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2010-12-01

ARUNA JAGADEESAN, K.N.BASHA

body2010
Judgment :- The Appellants, who have been arrayed as A1 to A14, have come forward with these Appeals challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Session Judge, Tuticorin , by the judgment dated 30.11.2001 made in S.C.No.210 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the Appellants as hereunder: Accused rank Conviction Under Sections Sentence A1 to A14 148,IPC Each to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo nine months’ rigorous imprisonment. A1 302 r/w 149, IPC (two counts) Life imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for each count, in default, to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment (each count)-Sentences to run separately. A2 to A9, A11 to A13 302 r/w 149, IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment. A2 to A14 (A10 &A14 two count) 149 r/w 302, IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment (A10 and A14 for each count) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. A10 & A14 324, IPC Each to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo nine months’ rigorous imprisonment A11,12 149,IPC Each to undergo two years, rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. in default, to undergo nine months’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentence imposed on A2 to A4 are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded through the evidence of the eye-witnesses are hereunder: (a) This is a case of double murder. For the sake of convenience, two deceased, namely, Saravanan and Duraipandian, are hereinafter referred to as D1 and D2. (b) D1and D2 and P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers, P.W.3 is the wife of D1.P.W.4 is the aunt of D1 and D2. On 06.12.1004 at 5.00 p.m., two children working under A3 were quarrelling among themselves while they were bringing the match sticks bundle and one Rangasamy uncle of P.W.1 separated them. The children, in turn, informed A3 about the said occurrence. A3 went to the house of the said Rangasamy and questioned him as to how he can attack them. D1 questioned the conduct of A3 as to how he can quarrel with his uncle/the said Rangasamy which resulted in a wordy quarrel between A3 and D1.P.Ws.1 and 2 pacified them. The children, in turn, informed A3 about the said occurrence. A3 went to the house of the said Rangasamy and questioned him as to how he can attack them. D1 questioned the conduct of A3 as to how he can quarrel with his uncle/the said Rangasamy which resulted in a wordy quarrel between A3 and D1.P.Ws.1 and 2 pacified them. (c) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 07.12.1994 at 4.45 p.m., D1 left from his house and he was followed by P.W.1. At that time, all the 14 Accused came from South to North opposite to D1. Each one of them armed with an Aruval. A3 cut D1 on his right side thigh saying as to how he can run the match box office against, them. A1 cut D1 on his left ear and below the left ear thrice. A2 cut D1 on his left hand arm with an aruval and his hand was severed. A4 cut D1 on his left thigh. A13 cut D1 on left knee twice with an Aruval. A5 cut D1 on his right rips with an Aruval. A6 cut D1 on his right armpit. On seeing the occurrence, D2 and P.W.3 ran towards the scene. A10 cut P.W.3 on her hip. A1 cut D2 on his neck upto his mouth. A9 also cut D2 near the same portion of the body.P.W.4 also rushed to the scene. At that time, A14 cut her on her neck which was warded off by P.W.4 with her left hand resulting an injury on her left hand and cheek. A7 and A8 cut D2 with an Aruval on his upper arm. All also cut D2 on his right wrist and thumb. A12 cut D2 on his right thigh. A7 cut D1 on his neck saying whether he is still alive. All the Accused ran away from the scene with their respective weapons. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station to give a report in a cycle. (d) P.W.14, Head Constable, received the report, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 on 07.12.1994 at 9.30 a.m. He registered the case in Crime No.205 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 and 307,IPC. Ex.P.13 is the First Information Report. He sent the same to the Court and to the higher Police officials. (d) P.W.14, Head Constable, received the report, Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 on 07.12.1994 at 9.30 a.m. He registered the case in Crime No.205 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 and 307,IPC. Ex.P.13 is the First Information Report. He sent the same to the Court and to the higher Police officials. (e) P.W.18 received the First Information Report and took up investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.21 in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8. (f) Meanwhile, P.W.17, the Doctor, attached to the Kovilpatti Government Hospital, examined P.W.3 at 10.50 a.m. He found the following injuries: “A cut injury on the back left side just below the ribs & 1 cm. Outer both midline 8 x 5 cm. & deep both organ. Bleeding present enough impulse present, bowel bulging out”. Ex.P.19 is the Wound Certificate. The above injury is simple in nature. (g) On the same day the Doctor,P.W.17, also examined P.W.4 at 11.15 a.m. and found the following injuries: (1) Lacerated injury left cheek 2 x 1 x 1 cm (2) Abrasion right elbow inner 1 x 1 cm (3) Pain right knee. (4) Cut injuries in the left index finger middle phalanx 1.5 x 1 x 1.5 cm. (5) Cut injury middle finger proximal phalanx tendons cut 1.5 x 1 x 1 cm.” Ex.P.20 is the Wound Certificate. All injuries are simple in nature. (h) P.W.18, in continuation of his investigation, held inquest on D-1 from 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. Ex.P.22 is the Inquest Report. He held inquest from 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. on the dead body of D2. Ex.P.23 is the Inquest Report. He sent the bodies for Post- mortem. (i) The Doctor, P.W.13, attached to the Government Hospital, Ottapidaram, conducted Post-mortem on D2 at 8.30 a.m. on 8.12.1994. He found the following injuries: (1) Oblique incised wound of ½ x ½ x ¼ dorsum right wrist. (2) Oblique incised wound on 1 x ½ x ¼ dorsum of right hand. (3) Oblique incised wound of 11 x5 x 4 right upper neck from front midline to back neck midline right carotid vessels Trachea oesophagus cervical spine, spinal cord and muscles severed at C4 level. (4) Oblique incised wound of 6 x 3 x 1-1 below injury 3. (5) Oblique incised would 3 x2x1/2 back of right shoulder. (3) Oblique incised wound of 11 x5 x 4 right upper neck from front midline to back neck midline right carotid vessels Trachea oesophagus cervical spine, spinal cord and muscles severed at C4 level. (4) Oblique incised wound of 6 x 3 x 1-1 below injury 3. (5) Oblique incised would 3 x2x1/2 back of right shoulder. (6) Two oblique incised wounds each of 1 x ½ x ¼ and 1 apart over right scapular region. (7) Oblique incised wound 1 x ½ x ¼ right upper lateral thigh. Internal Organ: Pale, Heart, Pale all chambers empty. In one non in weight size and disposition. Stomach: Empty. No specific odour. Rectum and Urinary Bladder empty. Atlas Axis. Hyoid Bone intact. Ex.P.11 is the Post-mortem Certificate. The Doctor, P.W.13, is of opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock haemorrhage about 24 hours prior to autopsy due to fatal injury No.3. (j) On the same day,i.e., on 08.12.1994 at 10.00 a.m., he conducted Post-mortem on the body of D1. He found the following injuries: (1) Transversely incised wound 3 x 2 x ½ upper mid back neck. (2) Transversely incised wound 8 x 3 x 2 front inner back of mid right thigh severely the muscles. (3) Transversely incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 above the back of left knee. (4) Transversely incised wound 6 x 3 x 2 mid back left thigh. (5) Transversely incised wound 3 x 2 x 1-1 above injury No.4 (6) Left upper limb amputated thro left upper arm obliquely as the injury of upper and middle thirds lying separately by the side of the body exposing the oblique cut surface of 8”. (7) Oblique incised wound 2 x 1 x ½ over left ear. (8) Transversely incised wound 2 x ½ x ½ thro left ear. (9) Transversely incised wound 2 x ½ x1/2-1 below left ear. (10) Oblique incised wound 3 x 2 x 1 just below axilla. (11) Vertical incised wound 10 x 4 x 1 right scapular region – fracture right scapular. (12) Transversely incised wound of 6 x 4 entering left front chest cavity left front 3rd , 4th, 5th ribs cut over left front chest. Left pleura incised transversely incised wound of 3 x 2 x 1. Left upper lobe of lung. Haemothorax left of 1500 ml of dark fluid blood present. (12) Transversely incised wound of 6 x 4 entering left front chest cavity left front 3rd , 4th, 5th ribs cut over left front chest. Left pleura incised transversely incised wound of 3 x 2 x 1. Left upper lobe of lung. Haemothorax left of 1500 ml of dark fluid blood present. (13) Transversely incised wound of 4 x 2 x ¾ over left cheek. Internal organs: Pale, heart pale, chambers empty, stomach-empty. No specific adour, atlas axis, hyoid bone intact, rectum and urine bladder empty. Ex.P.12 is the Post-mortem Certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained. Fatal injuries No. 12 and 6 about 24-30 hours prior to autopsy. (h) P.W. 18, in continuation of his investigation, recovered the bloodstained earth/M.O.4 and sample earth/M.O.5 found near the body of D1 under Ex.P.3 in the presence of witnesses. He recovered bloodstained earth/M.O.6 and sample earth/M.O.7 found near the body of D2 under Ex.P.7 in the presence of witnesses. On 08.12.1994, he examined one Rangasamy, P.W.4, one Murugan and P.W.6 . On 09.12.1994, he examined P.W.3, 7 and 8. While he examining P.W.3, he has recovered bloodstained stained saree/M.O.1, MO.2 petty coat/M.O.3, bloodstained jacket under Ex.P.4. On 09.12.1994 at 3.00p.m., he arrested A1 A3, A5 to A11, A13 and A14. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A1 under Ex.P.25, he recovered M.Os.12 to 18, aruvals under Ex.P.26. He has produced the material objects before the Court and also produced the Accused for remand. On 25.12.1994, he examined the Doctors, P.Ws.13 and 17. He sent the material objects with a requisition under Ex.P.15 through the Court for chemical examination. He examined the remaining witnesses and received the Post-mortem Certificates, Exs.P.11 and 12, Ex.P.17, chemical examination report and Ex.P.18, serology report. On completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the Accused on 15.11.1995 for the offences under Sections 147, 148,302,324, and 307 r/w 149,IPC. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 18, filed Exs.P.1 toP.26 and marked M.Os.1 to 18. 4. When the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, each one of them have come forward with the version of total denial. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 18, filed Exs.P.1 toP.26 and marked M.Os.1 to 18. 4. When the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, each one of them have come forward with the version of total denial. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not examined any witness nor marked any documents on their side. 5.0. Mr.M.S. Velusamy ,Mr. A.M. Rahamath Ali, Mr. K. Kumar, Mr. N. Ananthapadmanaban, Mr. S. Durairaj, Mr. B. Pugalendhi and Mr. P. Andiraj. learned Counsel for the Appellants vehementaly contended that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. It is contended that the prosecution has put forth its case by placing reliance on the interested and partisan witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4, who are closely related to the deceased. It is contended that in spite of specific admission of the eyewitness, P.W.2, to the effect that there are 25 houses in the same street, wherein, the occurrence took place, and all the residents have seen the occurrence and P.W.4, who has stated that the occurrence took place for 10 minutes and the persons residing in the same street have known about the occurrence, but the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. 5.1. The learned Counsel for the Appellants would proceed to contend that there is a serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.P.1 as same could not have been received and registered at the time and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Thalayari, P.W.8 has categorically stated that in respect of the occurrence he gave information to the police and on his information police came to the scene of occurrence and thereafter, they have taken P.W.1 to the Police Station and as such, the earliest information given by P.W.8 has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is pointed out that P.W.7, Village Administrative Officer, has also categorically admitted in his cross examination that the Police came to the scene of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. itself. It is pointed out that P.W.7, Village Administrative Officer, has also categorically admitted in his cross examination that the Police came to the scene of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. itself. It is further contended that the Doctor, P.W.13, who has conducted Post-mortem on D1 and D2, admitted in his cross-examination that the occurrence could have been taken place on 07.12.1994 between 4.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. and P.W.17, another Doctor, who has examined P.Ws.3 and 4/injured witnesses, has stated that the occurrence could have been taken place at 5.30 a.m. and as such, the defence version is probabilised by the medical evidence that the occurrence could have taken place much earlier than that of the claim of the prosecution to the effect that the occurrence took place at 7.45 a.m. 5.2. It is further contended that in view of the aforesaid materials available on record, the delay in despatching the First Information Report assumes importance as the First Information Report which is said to have been registered as early as at 9.45 a.m. has been despatched and reached the Magistrate’s Court at 7.00 p.m. and as per the version of P.W.9, the Constable, who has despatched the First Information Report to the Magistrate Court, one could have reached the Court within half an hour from the Police Station and such inordinate dealy is not at all explained by the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the Appellants would further contend the in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate’s Court coupled with the admission of P.Ws.7 and 8 to the effect that police came to the scene even at 8.00 a.m., the suppression of the earliest report given to the police cannot be ruled out and the same would make it very clear that First Information Report in this case is a fabricated document and as such, the entire prosecution case is liable to be rejected. 5.3. The learned counsel for the Appellants would further contend that the version of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, is artificial and unbelievable as they have given minute details by giving specific overt acts against each of the 14 Accused and such parrot like version of the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, clearly demonstrates that they have not come forward with the true version and their evidence is unreliable. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W.1 has not spoken about the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence and P.W.3 ruled out the presence of P.W.1 and as such, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been present at the scene at the time of occurrence. The learned Counsel would submit that P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the other Accused persons, namely, Sivasubramaniam and Maapillaisami have been caught red-handed by him, but they have not been implicated as one of the Accused in this case and as such, the participation of other Accused in the occurrence cannot be ruled out. 5.4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants would lastly contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recoveries of the weapons at the instance of A1 as the witnesses to speak about the recoveries, namely, P.Ws.7 and 8 have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. It is also pointed out that the weapons, Aruvals, namely, M.Os.12 to 18 have been recovered only on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession of A1 and the said weapons have not been stained with blood. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. T.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for P.W.2, would submit that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence through the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 and among them, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the injured witnesses. It is contended that the occurrence is said to the taken place in the street and that too at the broad day light time resulting in the death of two persons, viz., D1 and D2. It is contended that there is no serious infirmity or inconsistency between the evidence of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctors, P.Ws.13 and 17 as they have found corresponding injuries on D1 and D2 as well as on P.Ws.3 and 4. It is contended that though P.Ws.7 and 8 have stated that Police came at 8.00 a.m. to the scene, both of them have not supported the prosecution case and as such, they have been treated as hostile and their evidence cannot be relied on. It is contended that though P.Ws.7 and 8 have stated that Police came at 8.00 a.m. to the scene, both of them have not supported the prosecution case and as such, they have been treated as hostile and their evidence cannot be relied on. It is further contended that the bloodstained clothes of P.W.3 have been recovered to substantiate here presence at the time of occurrence. It is also submitted that the prosecution placed reliance on the recoveries of the weapons, namely, M.Os.12 to 18 recovered at the instance of A1. It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.Ws.3 and 4 have categorically stated even at the earliest point of time during their examination by the Doctor, P.W.17, that the occurrence is said to have taken place at 7.00 a.m. on 07.12.1994, in which some identifiable persons attacked D1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that though certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the defence in the prosecution case, the same would not affect the main case of the prosecution. 7. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. The fact remains that P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers of D1 and D2; P.W.3 is the wife of D1; P.W.4, the aunt of D1 and D2 and as such, all the four eyewitnesses are closely related to the deceased. In view of the same, we have to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 9. The sheet-anchor of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that there is a serious about the genuineness of the earliest document, Ex.P.1-report said to have been given by P.W.1. It is the version of the prosecution that P.W.1. has given the report Ex.P.1 to P.W.14,Head Constable, at 9.30 a.m. It is seen that P.W.8, Thalayari, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that after the occurrence he gave the information to the police and thereafter, the police came to the scene of occurrence and took P.W.1 to the Police Station. Yet another official witness, P.W.7-Village Administrative Officer, has also admitted in his cross-examination that the Police came to the of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. itself. Yet another official witness, P.W.7-Village Administrative Officer, has also admitted in his cross-examination that the Police came to the of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. itself. Though the above said two witnesses have been treated as hostile, their evidence cannot be thrown out in its entirety. It is well-settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto and any portion either in favour of the defence or in favour of the prosecution can very well be placed reliance. Therefore, we are of the considered view that we cannot simply brush aside the version of P.Ws.7 and 8, who are the official witnesses in this case. Apart from such factor, it is relevant to note that P.W.8, who is the Thalayari, is residing in the very same street, wherein, the occurrence is said to have taken place. As a matter of fact, it is specifically mentioned in the Wound Certificate, Exs.P.19 and 20 issued in respect of P.Ws.3 and 4, that the deceased as well as P.Ws.3 and 4 have been cut in front of the house of P.W.8. Be it as it may, it is not disputed by the prosecution that P.W.8 is residing in the same street, wherein, the occurrence is said to have taken place, as pointed out earlier, and as such, P.W.8 could have been an eye-witness in this case. But the prosecution has chosen to examine him only to speak about the arrest and recovery. 10. Yet another factor to be borne in mind by this Court is that it is seen that even as per the admission of the Doctor, P.W.13, who has conducted Post-mortem, two deceased could have sustained injuries between 4.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 07.12.1994. Another Doctor, P.W.17, who has examined P.Ws.3 and 4 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the said witnesses could have sustained injury at 5.30 a.m. Therefore, the possibility of the occurrence taking place much earlier as against the claim of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at 7.45 a.m. cannot be ruled out. 11. In view of all these infirmities and inconsistencies, the inordinate and unexplained delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate’s Court as well as the delay in registering the First Information Report assume importance. 11. In view of all these infirmities and inconsistencies, the inordinate and unexplained delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate’s Court as well as the delay in registering the First Information Report assume importance. It is pertinent to note that according to the prosecution the occurrence is said to have taken place at 7.45 a.m., but the report was given only at 9.30 a.m., whereas, the Police Station is only 10 kilometers away from the scene of occurrence. It is relevant to note that P.W.1 claimed that he gave the report to P.W.14, Head Constable, and the same was registered at 9.30 a.m. But the said First Information Report despatched and reached the Magistrate’s Court only at 7.00 p.m. as per the evidence of the Constable, namely, RW.9, who has taken the First Information Report, to the Magistrate’s Court. It is categorically admitted by P.W.9 in his cross-examination that from the Police Station to the Kovilpatti Magistrate’s Court it would take only half an hour if one goes by bus. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the prosecution in respect of the inordinate delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate’s Court. In view of the all these factors, it is crystal clear that the earliest report given by P.W.8 could have been suppressed. 12. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Honorable Apex Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P., Air 1976 SC 2423 , wherein, it was held as hereunder: “5. Mr. Frank Anthony appearing for Appellant Ishwar Singh submitted that in affirming the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court also overlooked certain important aspects of the case that the Sessions Judge had failed to consider. He pointed out that the FIR which is stated to have been lodged at 9.05 a.m. on February 14, 1973 was sent out from the Police Station the next day, February 15; the time when it was dispatched is not stated, but it appears from the record that the Magistrate received it on the morning of February 16. The Court of the Magistrate was nearby, which makes it difficult to understand why the report was sent to him about two days after its stated hour of receipt at the Police Station. The Court of the Magistrate was nearby, which makes it difficult to understand why the report was sent to him about two days after its stated hour of receipt at the Police Station. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as well as of 1973 both require the first information report to be sent “forthwith” to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered for this extraordinary delay in sending the report to the Magistrate. This is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting, as Mr.Anthony suggested, that the First Information Report was recorded much later that the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence.” 13. In yet another decision in Rajeevan and another v. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) SCC 355 , the Honorable Apex Court has held as hereunder: “6. The Trial Court noticed that there were many weak spots in the prosecution case such as, the delay in lodging the First Information Statement. The spot of incident is only 100 metres from the Police Station. But the FIR was lodged in the Police Station only at 7.40 a.m. on the next day; that though FIR was filed on 29.12.1987 in the morning, it was sent to the Magistrate only at 5.40 p.m. on 30.12.1987; that the Sub-Inspector (PW 28) did not register that crime on the basis of information collected by him immediately after the incident; that Ext.P-30 is the counterfoil file of the FIR and between the entries relating to Crimes Nos.5 and 7, certain blank sheets were found; that this circumstance was not satisfactorily explained by the police officer concerned during examination. The Trial Court is of the view that this was done to fill up details regarding the instant case subsequently; that Ext.P-1, first information statement given by PW 1 also seemed to have been subsequently 6 written on a blank signed paper, that this inference was drawn due to the cramped handwriting in the paper towards the end portion, just above the signature though there was adequate space in the next page. 7. 7. Based on these factors the FIR was found to be a concocted document and delay in lodging the FIR with the Magistrate also influenced the Trail Court in holding that innocent persons were being implicated as a result of Political vendetta or for any other reason as there was enough time for manipulation and the manner in which record was maintained gave rise to grave suspicion regarding the same”. 14. The Honorable Apex Court in Dilwar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007(6) Supreme 153 has held as hereunder; “8. In Criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity for to the Complainant to make deliberation upon the Complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look at for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. The principle laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in the decisions cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, as already pointed out, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in dispatching the First Information Report to the Magistrate’s Court and such delay assumes importance in view of the infirmities and inconsistencies found in the prosecution case. 15. We have already pointed out that according to R.W.7, Village Administrative Officer, as per his admission in the cross-examination that the Police came to the scene at 8.00 a.m. itself, whereas, P.W.1 claimed that he has given the report only at 9.30. to P.W.14, Head Constable. 15. We have already pointed out that according to R.W.7, Village Administrative Officer, as per his admission in the cross-examination that the Police came to the scene at 8.00 a.m. itself, whereas, P.W.1 claimed that he has given the report only at 9.30. to P.W.14, Head Constable. We have also already pointed out that though the prosecution claimed that the occurrence took place at 7.45 a.m., the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, Village Administrative Officer and Thalayari coupled with the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.13, who has conducted post-mortem, reveals that the occurrence could have taken place between 4.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. and another Doctor, P.W.17 had admitted in his cross-examination that the injured witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4 could have sustained injuries at 5.30 a.m. Added to the above said factors, it is pertinent to note that P.W.1 admitted that even before his arrival to the scene from the Police Station, the bodies of the deceased have been taken away from the scene in a van. P.W.1 further proceeded to state in the cross-examination that the Investigating Officer came to the scene at 10.00 a.m. and enquired him about the occurrence. It is pertinent to note that P.W.14, Head Constable, stated that P.W.1 came to the Police Station and gave the report at 9.30 a.m. and the same was recorded by him which could have consumed some more time and the categorical admission of P.W.1, as stated above, shows that P.W.1 returned to the scene before 10.00 a.m. as he has stated that the Investigating Officer arrived at the scene at 10.00 a.m. and as such, it is crystal clear that if really P.W.1 has given the report as claimed by the prosecution at 9.30 a.m., he could not have returned to the scene which is 10 kms. away from the scene before 10.00 a.m. It is seen that P.W.1 has stated that he has left the scene by cycle within two minutes after the occurrence. If such version is true, he could have reached the Police Station much earlier. away from the scene before 10.00 a.m. It is seen that P.W.1 has stated that he has left the scene by cycle within two minutes after the occurrence. If such version is true, he could have reached the Police Station much earlier. But the fact remains as already pointed that P.W.1 claimed to have given the report at 9.30 a.m. P.W.18, the Investigating Officer, on the other hand, would state that he has arrived at the scene only at 10.30 a.m. and thereafter, held inquest on the deal bodies of two deceased from 11.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. and only thereafter, he has sent the bodies to the hospital for Post-mortem. But, as already pointed out, P.W.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that even before his arrival at the scene from the Police Station, the bodies have been sent by the Police through a van. Therefore, it is very clear that P.W.1 has not come forward with the clear, consistent and true version about the manner under which he has given the report, Ex.P.1. This inconsistent version of P.W.1 coupled with the version of P.Ws.7 and 8, who are the official witnesses, to the effect that Police arrived at the scene at 8.00 a.m. itself and the evidence of the Doctors, P.Ws.13 and 17, to the effect that the occurrence could have taken place between 4.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. respectively makes it abundantly clear that the earlier reports either given by P.W.8 or given by P.W.1 could have been suppressed in this case. In view of such factors, the inordinate delay in dispatching the First Information Report assumes importance and raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the report, Ex.P.1 and as such, we have no hesitation to hold that the First Information Report, Ex.P.1, in this case is nothing but a fabricated document and as such, the entire prosecution case would collapse. 16. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, 1980 SCC (Cri.) 985, wherein it was held as hereunder. 16. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, 1980 SCC (Cri.) 985, wherein it was held as hereunder. “The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the entire fabric of the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence.” The principle laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in the decisions cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case we have already held that the First Information Report in this case is nothing but a fabricated document and as such, the entire prosecution case would collapse. 17. Now coming to the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, it is to be stated, at the outset, that all of them have come forward with a parrot-like version of giving minute and photographic details about the occurrence. It is pertinent to note that they have given specific overt acts to each of the 14 Accused. P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that all the Accused surrounded and attacked the deceased simultaneously at the same time and as such, it is inherently improbable for P.Ws.1 to 4 to give such a photographic, minute and dramatic details in respect of each and every specific overt act attributed against 14 Accused regarding the attack on the deceased and the injured witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4. 18. At the juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in Selvi v. State of T.N., AIR 1981 SC 1230 , wherein the Honorable Apex Court has held as hereunder: ”3…….. Another feature of the case which makes us doubt the credibility of the witnesses is the photographic and somewhat dramatic account which they gave of the incident with minute details of the attack on each of the victims. According to the account of the witnesses it was as if each of the victims of the attack came upon the stage one after the other to be attacked by different Accused in succession, each victim and his assailant being followed by the next victim and the next assailant. According to the account of the witnesses it was as if each of the victims of the attack came upon the stage one after the other to be attacked by different Accused in succession, each victim and his assailant being followed by the next victim and the next assailant. Surely the account of the witnesses is too dramatic and sounds obviously invented to allow each witness to give evidence of the entire attack. But the witnesses themselves admit in cross-examination that they were all attacked simultaneously. If so, it was impossible for each of them to have noticed the attack on everyone else.” The view expressed by the Honorable Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, we have already pointed out that P.Ws.1 to 4, eyewitnesses, have given minute, photographic and dramatic details about the occurrence and as such, we are of the considered view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4. 19. The conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are none else than the brothers of the two deceased is also unnatural and abnormal. It is stated by P.W.1 that after the occurrence, he has simply left for the Police Station to give the report. He has not raised his little finger to find out the fate of the injured/deceased, namely, his brothers or the other two injured persons-womanfolk, namely,P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.2, another brother of the two deceased and closely related to the eyewitnesses, has stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence, he remained as a silent spectator and after the occurrence, he has not taken the injured to the hospital and he has simply left for his house. The normal prudent conduct of such persons is to see the fate of the deceased as to what happened and to take the injured to the hospital immediately. P.W.2 has not bothered to accompany with P.W.1 to the Police Station to give the report. This unnatural and abnormal conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 throws considerable doubt about the veracity of their version. 20. P.W.2 has not bothered to accompany with P.W.1 to the Police Station to give the report. This unnatural and abnormal conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 throws considerable doubt about the veracity of their version. 20. It is also curious to note that in spite of 14 persons attacking the two deceased and P.Ws.3 and 4/women-folk, P.Ws.1 and 2 alone have claimed to have been spared and they have not sustained any injury at the hands of anyone of the 14 Accused which throws considerable doubt about their very presence at the scene. It is relevant to note that P.W.1 has not stated about the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence and P.W.3 ruled out the presence of P.W.1 during the evidence and as such, both of them could not have been present at the time of occurrence at the scene. 21. The evidence available on record would also disclose as per the version of P.W.1 that certain other persons apart from these Accused in this case have also participated in the occurrence and attacked the deceased and the injured. It is categorically admitted by P.W.1 in his cross-examination that one Sivasubramaniam and Mappillaisamy, the two Accused persons have been caught red-handed by him. But they have not been implicated as Accused in this case or they have been shown as witnesses to the occurrence. This specific admission of P.W.1 clearly shows that involvement of other persons in attacking D1 and D2 and P. Ws.3 and 4 cannot be ruled out. 22. Yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case is the non-examination of the independent witnesses and the same is also fatal to the prosecution case. P.W.2 has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there are 25 houses situated in the same street, wherein, the occurrence is said to have taken place and all the persons, who are residing in those houses, have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.4 has also admitted in his cross-examination that the occurrence took place for 10 minutes and the persons, who are residing in the street, have also witnessed the occurrence. But none of them have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its version. 23. The prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the recoveries of the weapons, aruvals, at the instance of A1. But none of them have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its version. 23. The prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the recoveries of the weapons, aruvals, at the instance of A1. It is pertinent to note that all the Aruvals, M.Os.12 to 18 have been recovered only as per the admissible portion of confession of A1. The witnesses, who have been examined to speak about the arrest and recoveries, namely, P.Ws.7 and 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile and apart from the said factor, the aruvals have not been found to be stained with human blood as per the Serology Report, Ex.P.17. 24. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, these Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.210 of 1996 dated 30.11.2001 are hereby set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Fine amounts paid, if any, are directed to be refunded to the Appellants. Bail bonds executed, if any, are directed to be terminated.