JUDGMENT 1. Accused are the appellants in these appeals. The appellants have come forward with these appeals challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur made in S.C. No. 24 of 2005 convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 341 IPC sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo one week rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC sentencing to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence were also suspended and the first appellant was released on bail, pending disposal of the appeal, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam and the second appellant was released on bail, pending disposal of the appeal, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 2. The following is the brief account of the prosecution case sans unnecessary details - 2.1 The second accused is the wife of one Natarajan s/o Chinnadurai. The said Chinnadurai is the maternal uncle of the de facto complainant, P.W.1. P.W.1 is working as head constable in Jayankondam Police Station. Twelve years back, marriage between Natarajan and Selvi took place but after two years, Natarajan died. Afterwards, the second accused was cohabiting with first accused and they have got a child. Rosy is the first wife of the first accused. For some time, second accused was demanding her share of properties and sreethana articles from the maternal uncle of P.W.1. P.W.1, enquired this matter and told her that after the death of her husband, she eloped with somebody else and hence, she could not claim anything and that she may take the sreethana articles given to her. On 15.4.2003, Kuvagam Police came to Poomudayaankudikadu and took Rosy regarding prohibition case. P.W.1 came there on duty. P.W.1, enquired this matter and told her that after the death of her husband, she eloped with somebody else and hence, she could not claim anything and that she may take the sreethana articles given to her. On 15.4.2003, Kuvagam Police came to Poomudayaankudikadu and took Rosy regarding prohibition case. P.W.1 came there on duty. He was saying that the first and second accused are the real hooch traders and they have to be nabbed. The second accused heard this and picked up quarrel with him uttering disgraceful words against him and hence he assaulted her. It was later informed to the first accused. On 19.4.2003, he came to his native place, Poomudayaankudikadu Village on one day leave, went to his cashewnut grove and was collecting the cashewnuts. At that time, his uncle Seshaiyan was coming behind him. In front of Kaliyaperumal teacher‘s house, at about 10.30 a.m., both the accused wrongfully restrained him and the first accused took out an aruval hidden in his body and cut him on his right side head. The next assault was prevented by P.W.1 by means of his right hand and hence he sustained injury on the right elbow. While the first accused again attempted to hack him, he took out a cycle chain which he kept in his hip and prevented the assault and snatched the aruval from the first accused. The second accused poured chilli powder on his eyes and both of them fled away from the scene. Chezhian, Vetriselvan, Suresh and Arivazhagan came there and he was admitted to Jayankondam Government Hospital. With the above details, P.W.1 gave complaint statement, Exhibit P-1 to the head constable, P.W.7 while he was inpatient in Jayamkondam Government Hospital on 19.4.2003. P.W.7, after recording the complaint, came to the police station, registered case under Sections 341, 324 and 307 IPC and lodged FIR, Exhibit P-9 and sent the same to the Court and copies to the superiors. P.W.7, after recording the complaint, came to the police station, registered case under Sections 341, 324 and 307 IPC and lodged FIR, Exhibit P-9 and sent the same to the Court and copies to the superiors. 2.2 P.W.5, the doctor attached to Jayamkondam Government Hospital examined and treated P.W.1 and gave Exhibit P-2 accident register and found the following external injuries - (1) An incised wound measuring 6” x 2½” x muscle deep on the right arm above the elbow (2) An incised wound on the right side of scalp measuring 12 cm x 7 cm x bone depth carrying a flesh of cut portion (it looks like english alphabet ‘C‘) cut portion was hanging. (3) An abrasion of 3 x 2 cms on the left knee. 2.3 P.W.4 is the Doctor working in Vinodhagan Hospital, Thanjavur. After P.W.1 was treated in the Jayamkondam Government Hospital, he was admitted to the above said hospital and the doctor P.W.4 working in there treated him and issued E.P4, accident register and Exhibit P-5 wound certificate. Exhibit P-6 is the case sheet maintained for P.W.1 in the said hospital and MOs 3 and 4 are the x-rays taken for P.W.1. It is their opinion that injury No. 2 is a grievous one which is a fracture on the right side parietal bone of P.W.1 and other injuries are simple in nature. 2.4 P.W.8, the inspector of police took up the case for investigation on 19.4.2003 at 4.00 p.m. He proceeded to the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, Exhibit P-10 and drew rough sketch, Exhibit P-11. He seized aruval and cycle chain under cover of mahazar, Exhibit P-12. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He examined the doctors also and got wound certificates. On completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. After the prosecution evidence was over, the trial Court questioned the appellants/accused under Section313 Cr.P.C. as regards incriminating materials available against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the complicity to the offence. They examined DW1 and marked Exhibit D-1 to D5. 4. After analysing the evidence and materials on record, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur sentenced the appellants as stated above. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the appellants are before this Court. 5. They denied the complicity to the offence. They examined DW1 and marked Exhibit D-1 to D5. 4. After analysing the evidence and materials on record, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur sentenced the appellants as stated above. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the appellants are before this Court. 5. The point for consideration is, “whether the prosecution has established the charges framed against the appellants/accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”. Point : 5.1 The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A. Padmanabhan would contend that the inordinate delay found in the FIR to reach the Court is fatal to the prosecution, that the improbabilities between the statements of witnesses and the contradictions in the statement of P.W.1 himself would show that the occurrence would not have taken place and that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges. 5.2 The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2002) SCC (Cri) 1027 in which it is observed that since delay of three days in sending FIR to Magistrate has occurred which includes no explanation, it is fatal to the prosecution. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are cogent and natural, that the evidence of P.W.1, injured is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctors, P.Ws.4 and 5 and that certain contradictions, even though if available would not prejudice the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The occurrence took place on 19.4.2003 at 10.30 a.m. It is stated in the FIR that the information was received by the police station on the same day at 13.00 hrs. P.W.7 would say that at about 11.15 a.m. on 19.4.2003, he got intimation, proceeded to the hospital and recorded complaint statement from him but the FIR reached the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Jayamkondam only on 23.4.2003 at 10.00 a.m. Thus, four days delay for the FIR to reach the Court has occurred. P.W.7 has not stated anything in his evidence as regards the delay. The investigating officer in his cross examination admitted that the FIR was received by the Court on 23.4.2003. However, he did not assign any explanation for the delay of four days. P.W.7 has not stated anything in his evidence as regards the delay. The investigating officer in his cross examination admitted that the FIR was received by the Court on 23.4.2003. However, he did not assign any explanation for the delay of four days. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.7 have come out with any plausible explanation satisfactorily before the Court for the inordinate delay. In the considered view of this Court, the unexplained and inordinate delay is fatal to the prosecution which makes the case doubtful. 8. As far as the place of occurrence is concerned, it is shifted from one place to another. In the complaint, P.W.1 has mentioned that the occurrence took place in front of Kaliaperumal teacher‘s house but in Exhibit P-4, accident register, it is stated that he reported before doctor that the occurrence took place near grave yard in Poomudayaan- kudikadu. There is much difference between two places and this constitutes a valid ground to lay suspicion over the prosecution case. Even if P.W.1 was treated immediately in the Jayamkondam Government Hospital, after the occurrence, since he has mentioned the place of occurrence as grave yard, a reasonable doubt has arisen whether the occurrence took place in front of Kaliaperumal teacher‘s house. 9. With regard to the possession of cycle chain, there were different versions available in the complaint. P.W.1 says that when the first accused attempted for third time to hack him, P.W.1 took out a cycle chain which he kept in his hip and prevented him from assaulting further and snatched the aruval. But in the evidence, he says in his chief examination that the second accused came to assault him with cycle chain and immediately he snatched the cycle chain from him and thereafter when the first accused attempted to assault him by aruval, he prevented it by cycle chain and snatched the aruval. In the cross examination, he would say that he said in his complaint and statement before the police that he took out a cycle chain from his hip and prevented the first accused from assault and snatched aruval from him. Contrary to this, P.W.2, the eye-witness would say that by means of cycle chain second accused assaulted P.W.1 and he (P.W.2) snatched the cycle chain from second accused and dropped on the earth. Contrary to this, P.W.2, the eye-witness would say that by means of cycle chain second accused assaulted P.W.1 and he (P.W.2) snatched the cycle chain from second accused and dropped on the earth. In the cross examination, he says that when the second accused was coming, she was having the cycle chain by means of which she assaulted on the back of P.W.1. He also says that he did not state during the investigation that P.W.1 prevented first accused from assaulting by means of cycle chain which he took from his hip. The above said contradictions would lead the Court to lay suspicion over the versions of PWs1 and 2 to a greater extent. 10. In the complaint, an earlier occurrence has been mentioned in which P.W.1 has stated that he assaulted Selvi on 15.4.2003 while Rosy was taken by the police in a prohibition case. But in the oral evidence, he would say that he reprimanded second accused. In the cross examination, he says that in his complaint he did not state that he assaulted the second accused. As to this aspect, P.W.2 would say both in his chief and cross examinations that on 15.4.2003, P.W.1 pushed the second accused and that she did not assault the second accused. There contradictions are also remarkable. 11. Even though P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries, and his clothes were blood stained at the time of occurrence, the investigating officer did not take any steps to send them for forensic lab analysis. In his cross examination, he would say that the statement of witnesses as well as the weapons were sent to the Court after one year, that no specific investigation was done with radiologist as to the fracture sustained by P.W.1 with reference to the x-ray and that he did not lift any blood stained earth since he did not see any blood stain in the scene of occurrence and that he also did not produce the weapon before the doctor to get his opinion. Even though he claims that the statement of witnesses were recorded on 19.4.2003, from the private witness and statement from doctors on 16.6.2003, 5.8.2003, he sent the statement of witnesses at a later point of time. From form 95, it is seen that the weapons were received by the Court on 14.7.2004 but the properties were remanded by the Court on 16.7.2004 only. From form 95, it is seen that the weapons were received by the Court on 14.7.2004 but the properties were remanded by the Court on 16.7.2004 only. This shows serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer in sending the weapons to the Court on a belated time and he did not take any initiative to send the blood stained clothes as well as the weapons to the forensic lab analysis to ascertain the origin and group of blood. In this regard, the nexus between the accused and the occurrence has not been established. 12. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the prosecution has not established the charges framed against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt which has arisen in this case. In such a view of this matter, the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. I answer this point in negative. 13. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed acquitting the appellants of the charges framed against them under Section 341 and 307 read with 34 IPC. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand discharged and the fine amounts, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.