JUDGMENT Ms. R.MALA, J. 1. These criminal appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Dindigul, in S.C. No. 37 of 2009 dated 8.2.2011, whereby, the 2nd appellant in Crl. A. (MD) No. 67 of 2011/A3 was convicted for the offence under Sections 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the said offence and the appellants 1, 3 and 4 in Crl. A. (MD) No. 67 of 2011/A3 to 5 and the appellant in Crl. A. (MD) No. 79 of 2011/A1 were convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and each of them sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. in default in payment to undergo three month simple imprisonment. 2. The respondent police filed a charge sheet against the appellants in both the appeals for the offences under Sections 148 , 302 , 302 read with 149, 326, 326 read with 149 I.P.C. stating that on 7.7.2006 at about 10.45 p.m., in front of the shop of one K. Seerappan, situated at North Car Street in Dindigul town, due to previous enmity, with a common intention to commit murder, assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses and murdered the deceased and caused injuries to the prosecution witnesses and thereby, they committed the offences as stated above. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, after following the procedures, framed necessary charges against the accused. Since all the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and marked Exhibits P-1 to 27 and M.Os.1 to 8. 4. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 12 are members of a Trade Union viz., A.I.T.U. The accused party belong to C.I.T.U. They fixed certain areas for carrying out their loading and unloading work. It is an admitted fact that the place of occurrence viz., the shop of one Seerappan is situated within the area of the accused party, where they were authorised to carry out their work. It is an admitted fact that the place of occurrence viz., the shop of one Seerappan is situated within the area of the accused party, where they were authorised to carry out their work. (b) On the fateful day, on 7.7.2006, when P.W.1, P.W.2 James, deceased Prakash, P.W.3 Palanichamay, Mani and one Selvam were loading Sunflower Seeds in an Eicher Lorry, the accused party came there and questioned them as to how they could load sunflower seeds within their area and entered into a quarrel and at that time, A1 stabbed the deceased Prakash with a knife on his left side abdomen and A4 assaulted the deceased on both sides of his shoulders and when that was prevented by P.W.1, A3 assaulted him and he sustained injury in his right little finger. P.W.2 James was assaulted by A2 below his left knee and that was prevented by P.W.3 and at that time, A5 assaulted P.W.3 with an iron pipe on his left shoulder. Thereafter, P.W.8 Arul took all the injured persons to the Government Hospital, Dindigul. (c) P.W.15 Dr.Vaiyapuri treated P.W.1 on 7.7.2006 at 11.30 p.m. and issued Exhibit P-10 copy of Accident Register. He found the following injury: 1. Incised wound over proximal part of palmar aspect of right little finger – 1 x ½ x ¼ cm. (d) Then, P.W.17 Thangam, Sub Inspector of Police, received intimation as to the occurrence and rushed to the hospital at 11.25 p.m. on 7.7.2006 and recorded the complaint Exhibit P-1 from P.W.1 and rushed to the police station and registered a case in crime No. 633 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 307 I.P.C. and prepared Exhibit P-17, printed F.I.R. and forwarded the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and P.W.20 Inspector of Police. (e) P.W.20, Thangavel, Inspector of Police received copy of Exhibit P-17, F.I.R on 8.7.2006 at 00.30 hours and took up the matter for investigation. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. At 6. a.m., he went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 Thangaraj and one Hanifa and prepared Exhibit P2, Observation Mahazer and drew rough sketch Exhibit P-23. At 7.15 a.m. he seized M.O.1 series, sunflower seeds under Exhibit P-3 athatchi in the presence of the same witnesses. At 6. a.m., he went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 Thangaraj and one Hanifa and prepared Exhibit P2, Observation Mahazer and drew rough sketch Exhibit P-23. At 7.15 a.m. he seized M.O.1 series, sunflower seeds under Exhibit P-3 athatchi in the presence of the same witnesses. At 11.30 a.m., he arrested A5 near common toilet situated at Murugabhavanam-Muthazhagupatti road, in the presence of P.W.5, Sekar and one Manikandan. At that time, A5 gave a confession statement and the admissible portion of his confession statement is Exhibit P-4. In pursuant to the same, A5 handed over M.O.2 iron pipe, which was seized under Exhibit P5, athatchi in the presence of the same witnesses and he sent the accused for judicial custody. On 9.7.2006, at about 10.30 hours, he went to Rajaji hospital and examined witnesses Jeyaseelan and Marimuthu. He seized M.O.3, bloodstained shirt and M.O.4 bloodstained lungi belonged to injured Prakash from P.W.7 Chinnapparaj, son of the injured/deceased Prakash under Exhibit P-6, seizure mahazer and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (f) On 13.7.2006 at 7.15 a.m., P.W.20 received the intimation that injured Prakash died and on receipt of the death intimation, he altered the offences from under Sections 147 , 148 and 307 I.P.C. into one under Sections 147 , 148 , 307 and 302 I.P.C. and prepared alteration report Exhibit P-24 and sent the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. From 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m., he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Exhibit P-25, inquest report. After inquest, he sent the body for autopsy along with requisition under Exhibit P-18. (g) P.W.11, Doctor. Alavudeen, attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, received Exhibit P-18 and conducted post-mortem at 12.15 p.m. on the dead body of the deceased Prakash and found the following external and internal injuries. “The following ante-mortem injuries noted on the body: 1. Partially sutured stab wound 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted on left shoulder. 2. Partially sutured stab wound 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted 2 cm above left collar bone. 3. Partially sutured stab wound 3 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted on outer aspect middle of left forearm. All the above wounds passes along the muscle plane. 4. 2. Partially sutured stab wound 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted 2 cm above left collar bone. 3. Partially sutured stab wound 3 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted on outer aspect middle of left forearm. All the above wounds passes along the muscle plane. 4. Sutured stab would 3 x ½ cm x cavity deep noted on middle quadrant of left side of abdomen. On dissection: The wound passes downwards, inwards entering the jejunum. That part is removed surgically and anastomosed end to end. There are two tears in the mesentery measuring 2 cm x linear x through and through which are also sutured. These shows surrounding bruising. NB: All the above wounds have one end pointed and other end curved. The following surgical wounds noted: 1. Drainage wound on both flanks. 2. Laparotomy wound noted on the middle of the abdomen. Other findings: Peritoneal cavity – Peritoneum is muddy containing 20 ml. of serosarguinous fluid. Pleural cavities – empty. Pericardium – contains 15 ml of straw color fluid. Heart – right side fluid blood. Left side empty. Coronory – Patent. Lungs – Cut Section congested showing patchy areas of bilateral basal consolidation. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys – Cut Section congested. Larynx and trachea – Normal. Hyoid bone – intact. Stomach – Contain 100 ml of mucosal fluid. Nil specific smell. Mucosa – Normal. Small intestine – Contains 20 ml. of bile stained fluid. Nil specific smell. Mucosa – Normal. Bladder – Expty. Brain – Surface vessel and cut Section congested. Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of stab injury in abdomen and the complications thereof. He has issued Post-mortem Certificate Exhibit P-19. P.W.20 examined some other witnesses and recorded their statements.” (h) On 19.7.2006, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.20 arrested A2 Antonysamy @ Antony in the presence of P.W.13 John Peter and P.W.14, Paramasivam. At that time, A2 gave a confession statement and the admissible portion of his confession statement is marked as Exhibit P-9 and on that basis, A2 handed over M.O.7 Knife, which was seized under Exhibit P-15 seizure mahazer at 4.15 p.m. On 27.7.2006, A3 Jeyaraj was surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti and P.W.20 took steps to get police custody of A3. On enquiry, A3 gave a confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.16, John Ponraj, Village Administrative Officer and one Muthiah, Village Assistant. On enquiry, A3 gave a confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.16, John Ponraj, Village Administrative Officer and one Muthiah, Village Assistant. The admissible portion of his confession statement is marked as Exhibit P-11. In pursuance of that, A3 handed over M.O.8 Knife and the same was seized under Exhibit P-16 seizure mahazer. On 31.7.2006, he came to know that A1 Sebasthiyar and A4 Velankanni @ Arockiadoss were surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem. P.W.20 took them on police custody. On enquiry, A1 gave a confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.16 and Muthiah and the admissible portion of the confession statement has been marked as Exhibit P-13. In pursuant to that, A1 handed over M.O.5, Knife and the same was seized under Exhibit P-12. seizure mahazer. On enquiry, A4 gave a confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.16 and Muthiah and the admissible portion of his confession statement has been marked as Exhibit P-14. In pursuance of that, A4 handed over M.O.6 Knife and the same was seized under Exhibit P-12 seizure mahazer. Thereafter, he sent the material objects to the concerned Court under Form 95. (i) On 25.8.2006 P.W.20 gave a requisition under Exhibit P-20 to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul, for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination, in turn, the material objects were forwarded to the Forensic Department under Exhibit P-27, covering letter of the Judicial Magistrate. After chemical examination, the Court received Exhibit P-21 biological report and Exhibit P-22 Serological report. (j) After examining other witnesses and recording their statements, P.W.20 completed the investigation and filed final report on 10.10.2006 for the offences under Sections 148 , 302 , 302 read with 149, 326 read with 506(ii) I.P.C. against all the five accused. 5. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence against the accused and all the accused denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. 6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions made on both sides, found that A1 to A5 are not guilty for the offence under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. and acquitted them of the above said offence, however convicted and sentenced them as stated above. No defence witness was examined. 6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions made on both sides, found that A1 to A5 are not guilty for the offence under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. and acquitted them of the above said offence, however convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Challenging the conviction and sentence, A1 has preferred an appeal in Crl. A. (MD) No. 79 of 2011 and A2 to A5 have preferred an appeal in Crl. A. (MD) No. 67 of 2011. 7. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is delay in preferring the complaint and despatching the FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. He would further submit that the injured witnesses and the deceased are the aggressors and the actual complaint given by P.W.8 has not seen the light of the day and the evidence of alleged eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12 are not admissible in evidence, since their evidence is parrot like evidence. He would further submit that the weapons seized from the accused would not have caused the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem certificate and hence, there are material contradictions between medical evidence and ocular evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court was in error in convicting all the accused under Sections 302 read with 149 I.P.C. since the occurrence has taken place on sudden provocation and there is no common object and meeting of mind and hence, the ingredients of Section 149 I.P.C. are not made out and he prayed for setting aside the conviction under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C against all the accused. 9. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased has not sustained injuries on any vital part of the body. 9. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased has not sustained injuries on any vital part of the body. The alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 7.7.2006 at 10.45 p.m. and the deceased died only at 6.30 a.m. on 13.7.2006 and hence, because of the complications of the abdomen injury only, he died and if proper medical treatment was given to him, he would have survived and if at all any offence is made out, it would be only under Section 326 I.P.C. He would further submit that the trial Court has not considered all the above aspects in proper perspective and hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. 10. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no delay in preferring the complaint, since the occurrence has taken place at 22.45 p.m. and the complaint was registered at 23.45 p.m. He would further submit that there is no delay in despatching the F.I.R. also and the F.I.R. has reached the Court on the very next day i.e. on 8.7.2006 at 6.00 p.m. and hence the delay is not fatal and to substantiate the same, he relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court. 11. He would further submit that only after obtaining permission the injured witnesses loaded sunflower seeds and hence the injured witnesses and the deceased are not the aggressors and only the accused persons are the aggressors. He would further submit that no complaint was given by P.W.8 and hence, he prayed to reject the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the complaint given by P.W.8 was suppressed by the prosecution. 12. He would further submit that the evidence of eye witnesses are not parrot like evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12 are corroborating with each other and hence, there is no reason for discarding their evidence. He would further submit that as per the evidence of P.W.18 Dr. 12. He would further submit that the evidence of eye witnesses are not parrot like evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12 are corroborating with each other and hence, there is no reason for discarding their evidence. He would further submit that as per the evidence of P.W.18 Dr. Alavudeen, the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the weapons, which were produced before the Court and therefore, there is no contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. He would further submit that the trial Court after considering all the aspects in its judgment has come to the correct conclusion and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeals. 13. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 14. The point for consideration in these appeals is, whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are sustainable? 15. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is delay in preferring the complaint. As per Exhibit P-1 complaint, the alleged occurrence has taken place on 7.7.2006 at 22.45 hours and the F.I.R. has been registered at 23.45 hours and hence, there is a delay of an hour. It is pertinent to note that the alleged occurrence has taken place during night hours. 16. Now, this Court has to consider whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12, who are said to be eye witnesses, are reliable. Admittedly, A1 to A3 are brothers and A4 is the son of A2. A5 is a third party. The facts of the case are that the injured witnesses as well the accused persons are load men, by profession. The injured witnesses belong to AITU and the accused persons belonging to CITU. P.W.1 is the president of AITU. It is an admitted fact that since there was a dispute in respect of area for carrying out their loading and unloading work, they had entered into an agreement with regard to their working places. Accordingly, the injured witnesses have to carry out their loading work in the Northern side of Vani Vilas Medu and the accused persons have to carry out their loading work in the Southern side of Vani Vilas Medu. Accordingly, the injured witnesses have to carry out their loading work in the Northern side of Vani Vilas Medu and the accused persons have to carry out their loading work in the Southern side of Vani Vilas Medu. Admittedly, on 7.7.2006, the injured witnesses had been loading sunflower seeds in front of K. Seerapan’s shop at North Car Street, Dindigul, which was under the control of the accused/appellants’ area. 17. The case of the prosecution is that at 10.45 p.m., A1 to A4, armed with knife, and A5, armed with iron pipe came to the place of occurrence and assaulted the injured witnesses and damaged cunny bags contained sunflower seeds. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 Alphonse, P.W.2 James, P.W.3 Palanichamy, P.W.6 Pitchairaj, P.W.7 Chinnaparaj, P.W.8 Arockiadoss are eye witnesses and out of them, P.Ws.1 to 3 are injured witnesses. Injury sustained by P.W.1 has been proved by way of examining P.W.15 doctor and Exhibit P-10, Accident Register copy issued to P.W.1. Except Exhibit P-10 Accident Register copy of P.W.1, no medical documents have been produced before the Court to prove that P.Ws.2 and 3 are also sustained injuries. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that non filing of medical document is not a reason for discarding the evidence of eye witnesses. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the decision relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Moniruddin Ahmed Alias Lalu Dealer and Others v. State of West Bengal (2011) 1 SCC 314. The relevant portion in paragraph No. 14 of the said decision is extracted hereunder: “14. As rightly observed by the High Court, though the abovesaid witnesses did not place their medical reports about their injuries, their presence at the spot cannot be doubted and rightly believed their version.” Considering the above said citation, non filing of medical Accident Register Copy for P.Ws.2 and 3 is not a reason to disbelieve their evidence, as if they are not injured eye witnesses. 19. Now, this Court has to decide whether the evidence of injured eye witnesses are reliable? 20. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 seem to be parrot like evidence and they are tutored witnesses and hence, their evidence cannot be looked into. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider their evidence. Now, this Court has to decide whether the evidence of injured eye witnesses are reliable? 20. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 seem to be parrot like evidence and they are tutored witnesses and hence, their evidence cannot be looked into. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider their evidence. It is true P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12 are eye witnesses. As already stated, they belong to AITU. The appellants belong to rival Trade Union viz., CITU. Perusal of the chief examination of P.W.1 has stated that A1 has stabbed the deceased Prakash on his left side abdomen and A4 Arockiadoss assaulted the deceased on his both shoulders and when, he prevented the same, he received injury on his right little finger and the same has been prevented by P.W.2 James. Further he has stated that A2 has assaulted P.W.2 below his left side knee and that has been prevented by Palanichamy and A5 assaulted Palanichamy with iron rod on his left shoulder. But, in his cross examination, the suggestion posed to him that all loadmen would possess hooks and that had caused injury to the deceased on his abdomen, was denied by him. But, he fairly conceded that they possess hooks. He has further stated in his cross examination that at the time of incident, 10 to 15 persons on their side and 15 to 20 persons on the side of the appellants were present. Further, he fairly conceded that he did not know who caused injury to whom. 21. P.W.2 James in his chief examination has stated as to how the accused persons caused injuries to them. But, in his cross examination, he denied the suggestion posed to him that at the time of incident, A2 and A4 were not present in the place of occurrence. In his cross examination, he has stated that the occurrence went for nearly 15 minutes and he did not know, who caused injury to whom, since both sides assaulted each other. The relevant portion in the cross examination of P.W.2 is reproduced hereunder: P.W.3, in his cross examination has stated as follows: P.W.6 in his cross examination has stated as follows: P.W.8, in his cross examination, has stated that only 6 persons had been loading sunflower seeds and after the occurrence only, others came to the place of occurrence. The relevant portion in the cross examination of P.W.2 is reproduced hereunder: P.W.3, in his cross examination has stated as follows: P.W.6 in his cross examination has stated as follows: P.W.8, in his cross examination, has stated that only 6 persons had been loading sunflower seeds and after the occurrence only, others came to the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion posed to him that he was not present at the time of occurrence. The relevant portion of his evidence is reproduced hereunder: 22. Considering their evidence, there are contradictions between the evidence of injured witnesses and their evidence are not corroborating with each other. Even though in their chief examination, they had stated how the occurrence has taken place, during the cross examination, they had given entirely different version. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the evidence of injured witnesses are not trustworthy, because in their evidence, they have fairly conceded that there is enmity between both the trade unions. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion posed to him that people belonged to accused Trade Union have given complaint against them for 6 or 7 times. But, he deposed that he did not know whether one Pushpanathan, who belongs to accused trade union has given complaint against him twice or not. Further, he fairly conceded that A3 has given complaint against him, Chinnaparaj, Arul and Arockiadoss for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Considering the same, it is clear that there is enmity between both the trade union people. 23. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 in his chief examination, has stated that after obtaining permission only, they loaded bags containing sunflower seeds in front of the shop of K.Seerappan. Whereas, in his cross examination, he has stated that at 7’0 clock evening, there was a negotiation in respect of loading of sunflower seeds and thereafter, at 8’0 clock only, they went to the shop of Seerappan and loaded sunflower seeds. In his cross examination, he has fairly conceded that A1 is the President of CITU and A1 to A3 are blood brothers. He denied the suggestion posed to him that because of enmity, he has given false complaint. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, admittedly, the appellants alone are entitled to do loading work, in the place, where the occurrence has taken place. He denied the suggestion posed to him that because of enmity, he has given false complaint. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, admittedly, the appellants alone are entitled to do loading work, in the place, where the occurrence has taken place. It is pertinent to note that after obtaining permission only, the injured witnesses carried out the loading work. But, there is no reason as to why the occurrence has taken place. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the non examination of other independent witnesses viz., the owner of Seerappan shop, driver and the cleaner of Eicher lorry, in which, loading work was carried out. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that all the alleged eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12 belong to same Trade Union, who are rivalry to the appellants’ Trade Union. Even though independent witnesses were available and present in the place of occurrence, they were not examined, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 24. In respect of delay in preferring the complaint is concerned, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at 22.45 hours and the case has been registered at 23.45 hours. Considering the evidence and perusing the documents, there is a delay of an hour in preferring the complaint and the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, as per Exhibit P-10, P.W.15. Dr. Vaiyapuri, has treated P.W.1 at 11.30 p.m. In Exhibit P-10, it has been specifically mentioned that the injured is alleged to have assaulted with knife around 11.00 p.m. On that day at Dindigul, “Chakku kadai street”. Thereafter only, at 11.45 p.m., the complaint has been given. In such circumstances, We are of the considered opinion that the delay of an hour in preferring the complaint is not fatal to the case of prosecution, since the occurrence is said to have taken place at 10.45 p.m., the complaint has been given at 11.45 p.m and P.W.1 was treated by P.W.15 Dr. at 11.30 p.m. and on the information only, the complaint was recorded at 11.45 p.m. 25. Now, this Court has to decide as to whether there is delay in despatching the FIR. 26. Perusal of F.I.R would reveal that the case was registered at 23.45 hours on 7.7.2006. at 11.30 p.m. and on the information only, the complaint was recorded at 11.45 p.m. 25. Now, this Court has to decide as to whether there is delay in despatching the FIR. 26. Perusal of F.I.R would reveal that the case was registered at 23.45 hours on 7.7.2006. Whereas the F.I.R. has reached the Court only on 8.7.2006 at 6.00 p.m. and there is a delay of nearly 18 hours. 27. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.17, Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.17, in his evidence, has fairly conceded that Government Hospital, Police Station and Court are adjacent to each other. It is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.17. P.W.17 has denied the suggestion posed to him that the complaint has not been received at 23.45 hours and it has been recorded only at 5. a.m. on 8.7.2006 and then only, the case was registered. Hence, it is clear that there is a delay in despatching the complaint. Admittedly, the person, who handed over the F.I.R. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, was not examined before the trial Court. No reason has been assigned for non examination the said witness. As per the evidence of P.W.17, all the three places viz., Government Hospital, Police Station and Court are adjacent to each other and there is no explanation offered by the prosecution as to why there is a delay of 18 hours in despatching the FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 28. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The dictum laid down in Thulia Kulf v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501 : (1972) SCC (Cr) 543 : (1974) 1 MLJ (Crl) 32 is to the effect that the delay in preferring and despatching the F.I.R quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought and on account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Therefore, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion in paragraph No. 12 of the said decision. Therefore, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion in paragraph No. 12 of the said decision. “First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.” The same dictum has been followed in the subsequent decisions and the relevant portion are incorporated in the following decisions. In Meharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 5 SCC 188 : (1994) SCC (Cr) 1390 : the relevant portion in paragraph No. 12 of the decision is extracted hereunder: “12. FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the Fir not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. Wit a view to determine whether the Fir was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. On account of delay, the Fir not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. Wit a view to determine whether the Fir was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf.” In State of Punjab v. Gurdip Kaur (2009) 1 SCC 120 : the relevant portion in paragraph No. 5 is extracted hereunder: “5. Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate and/or the medical evidence is awesome variance with the ocular evidence the prosecution has to fail, in the instant case combined effect of the above factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not consider this appeal to be a fit case where any interference is called for.” In Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 944 , the relevant portion in paragraph No. 15 is extracted hereunder: “Delay in lodging the First Information report has a great importance in a case of this nature. Enmity between the parties stands admitted.” 29. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the decisions Shiv Ram v. State Uttar Pradesh AIR 1998 SC 49 : (1998) 1 SCC 149 : (1998) SCC (Cr) 278 : (1998) 1 MLJ (Crl) 390 , wherein, the Apex Court has held that the delay in despatching the F.I.R. is not a fatal, if explanation given by the witnesses is quite plausible. It is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion, which reads as follows: “It is true that the complainant at the relevant time was posted at a far-off place but he testified that he had come to village Bajarkha on two days’ leave as he had not come till then to his village after he joined the service. This explanation given by the witness is quite plausible and the Courts below were right in accepting his presence at the time of occurrence. It is also true that there was a delay in forwarding the copy of the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate but that circumstance would not demolish the other positive and credible evidence on record. This would only show how in such a serious crime the investigating agency was not careful and prompt as it ought to be.” 30. Considering the above said decision, explanation has to be offered for delay in despatching the FIR. But, in the case on hand, no explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to why the FIR has not been despatched immediately even though the Court is situated nearby to the police station. 31. In the said aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant also relied on another decision in Chikkarangaiah v. State of Karnataka (2009) 17 SCC 497 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1071 : (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 410 , wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “34........ It is true that in all cases the delay in transmitting the FIR and its reaching the Magistrate late is not fatal to the prosecution. However, when there is some doubt with respect to the genesis of the complaint, the surest safeguard would be for the complaint to be received by the Magistrate expeditiously especially in a case as grave as this. When there is considerable doubt on the whereabouts of PW1 during a stay at Kunigal, the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate would have bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case.” 32. When there is considerable doubt on the whereabouts of PW1 during a stay at Kunigal, the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate would have bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case.” 32. Considering the above said decisions and considering the oral evidence of P.W.17, since the hospital, police station and the Court are adjacent to each other and the case has been registered at 23.45 hours on 7.7.2006 and it reached the Court only at 6.00 p.m. on 8.7.2006, the delay gives suspicion that after due deliberations, the complaint has been recorded and on that basis only, the FIR has been registered belatedly. Hence, we find merits in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is delay in despatching the FIR would show that the complaint and FIR have been come into existence only on 8.7.2006, after due deliberations. We find shadow in the birth of the complaint and F.I.R and the shadow has not been cleared by the prosecution. Therefore, We are of the considered view that because of the enmity between both the Trade Unions, the delay in despatching FIR has played vital role in implicating and roping the appellants/A1 to A5 in this case, who belong to one family except A5, who is a third party. So, we are of the considered view that the delay in despatching the F.I.R. without explanation for delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 33. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.8 has given a complaint and the same has not seen the light of the day. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider whether P.W.8 has given any complaint earlier to the complaint Exhibit P-1, given by P.W.1. P.W.8 Arul, in his cross examination, has stated that after he admitted his father in the hospital, he went to Town North Police Station and gave an information and then only, the police came to the hospital and recorded statement from P.W.1 Alphonse. His candid admission is when he gave an information, the police has not recorded his statement and obtained signature. He further stated that the police examined P.W.1 and he alone narrated the incident. His candid admission is when he gave an information, the police has not recorded his statement and obtained signature. He further stated that the police examined P.W.1 and he alone narrated the incident. It is appropriate to incorporate the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.8, which reads as follows: Perusal of the above evidence would reveal that there is no evidence to show that P.W.8 has given a complaint and it was reduced in writing and his signature was obtained in accordance with Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per the evidence of P.W.8 neither he has given complaint nor his statement was recorded by police. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.17, Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the complaint and registered the case. Their evidence is corroborating with each other. Therefore, we are of the considered view that P.W.1 alone has given Exhibit P-1 complaint and that has been recorded by P.W.17 and on that basis, P.W.17 registered the case in crime No. 633 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 307 I.P.C. and prepared Exhibit P17, printed F.I.R. Hence the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.8 has given complaint and it has not seen the light of the day does not merit acceptance. 34. Now this Court has to decide as to whether the death of the deceased Prakash would come under Section 300 I.P.C and it is a murder or culpable homicidal. 35. Admittedly, on 7.7.2006, the deceased sustained injuries and he was admitted in hospital and he died on 13.7.2006. After inquest, post-mortem was conducted. In the post-mortem certificate, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injury in abdomen and the complications thereof. 36. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.11, Dr. Alavudeen. In his evidence, he has fairly conceded that the injury sustained by the deceased was a curable one. In his cross examination, he has further stated that if proper medical treatment was given, there would have been a chance for survival of the deceased. In such circumstances, the injury sustained by the deceased was not fatal in nature. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that Accident Register Copy of the deceased has not been produced before the trial Court. In such circumstances, the injury sustained by the deceased was not fatal in nature. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that Accident Register Copy of the deceased has not been produced before the trial Court. In such circumstances, we are forced to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the injury caused to the deceased was not fatal in nature and not to cause instaneous death of the deceased. 37. Now, this Court has to decide as to whether who is the aggressor, since there is a dispute between two groups?. 38. As already stated, admittedly, the place of occurrence viz., Seerappan shop, is situated within the place, where the accused/appellants carry out their loading work. Whereas, the prosecution witnesses alone have encroached upon the jurisdiction and loaded sunflower seeds, even though, they have stated after getting prior permission only, they loaded the same. In such circumstances, there will not be any dispute. But, as per the evidence, after a wordy altercation only, the occurrence is said to have taken place. As already stated, there is a pull and push between two groups and sustained injuries. But, the prosecution witnesses were not in a position to mention as to who caused injury to whom. In such circumstances, We are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the abdomen injury sustained by the deceased, said to have been caused by A1 alone resulted in his death. Perusal of the post-mortem certificate would reveal that the deceased sustained following injuries: “1. Partially sutured stab wound 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted on left shoulder. 2. Partially sutured stab wound 2 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted 2 cm above left collar bone. 3. Partially sutured stab wound 3 x ½ cm x muscle deep noted on outer aspect middle of left forearm. All the above wounds passes along the muscle plane. 4. Sutured stab would 3 x ½ cm x cavity deep noted on middle quadrant of left side of abdomen.” Therefore, it is clear that the injuries on the left shoulder, left collar bone, left fore arm and left side abdomen were not fatal in nature. As per the doctor’s evidence, the complications thereoff in the stab injury on the left side abdomen would have led to death. As per the doctor’s evidence, the complications thereoff in the stab injury on the left side abdomen would have led to death. In such circumstances, there is no clinching evidence to prove that A1 has caused fatal injury to the deceased. 39. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.18 doctor has admitted the suggestion posed to him that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by a sharp edged weapon, like knife. He has stated as follows: In cross examination also, he has fairly conceded that those injuries could not have been caused either by double edged or single edged weapon. As per the medical evidence, these weapons should not cause injury on the abdomen. In such circumstances, we are forced to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries sustained by the deceased would not have been caused by M.O.1 seized from A1. 40. It is also pertinent to note that the material objects were sent for chemical examination. In the serology report Exhibit P-22, even though it is stated that it contained human blood, grouping is inconclusive. In such circumstances, it is unsafe to fasten criminal liability upon A1 that he caused fatal injury on the left side abdomen of the deceased Prakash. 41. As discussed above, to sum up, (i) There is delay in despatching the F.I.R. (ii) Independent witnesses i.e. shop owner, driver and cleaner of the Eicher lorry, though available were not examined. (iii) Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 12 are not reliable, because there is enmity between both rival Trade Unions, since the eye witnesses are the aggressors, (iv) The eye witnesses only encroached upon the place, where the accused persons were doing their loading and unloading work as per the agreement and (v) there are contradictions between medical evidence and ocular evidence in respect of weapon used for the commission of offence. (vi) The prosecution has not proved that the injury on the left side abdomen of the deceased was fatal in nature. (vii) the death was only due to complication of the stab injury in the left side abdomen. So, as per the reasons assigned above, we are of the considered view that there is no evidence to show that A1 alone has caused such injury to the deceased, even though there are 15 to 20 persons in each group. (vii) the death was only due to complication of the stab injury in the left side abdomen. So, as per the reasons assigned above, we are of the considered view that there is no evidence to show that A1 alone has caused such injury to the deceased, even though there are 15 to 20 persons in each group. Hence, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubts is to be given in favour of the appellant/accused. Hence, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are liable to be set aside and the criminal appeals are deserve to be allowed. 42. Accordingly, these criminal appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.2.2011 in S.C. No. 37 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, Dindigul is hereby set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused shall be refunded forthwith. The appellants/accused are stated to be in jail and they are directed to be released forthwith, unless, their presence is required for any other case or cause. Ms. K. SUGUNA and Ms. R. MALA, J. ADVANCE ORDER These criminal appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.2.2011 in S.C. No. 37 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court/ Fast Tract Court, Dindigul is hereby set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused shall be refunded forthwith. The appellants/accused are stated to be in jail and they are directed to be released forthwith, unless, their presence is required for any other case or cause. Appeals allowed.