Judgment :- 1. Accused is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment dated 16.02.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram made in S.C.No.646 of 2005 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 307 IPC. The sentence was also suspended and the 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthramerur and on further condition that he should appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., till the disposal of the appeal. 2. The following is the factual matrix of the prosecution :- 2[a] PW1 lodged complaint, Ex.P1 as to the occurrence in which he has stated that the injured Settu is his relative. Both Sethu and the accused were working as cleaners in a private lorry. Bad blood was existing between both of them. On 15.06.2005, at about 4.00 p.m., PW1 and PW2 went to take their goats . At that time, opposite to Uniply Company, near STD Booth, there was a wordy quarrel between PW4 and the accused. The accused took a knife from his shirt and attempted to cut PW4 on his neck. While he warded off, he sustained cut injury on his left hand. The accused further cut on the thumb of right palm of PW4 and when PW4 fell down, the accused cut him on his head and when PW1 to 3 raised alarm on seeing the occurrence, the accused fled away from the scene with the knife. The injured was immediately removed by auto to the Government hospital at Chengalpet at 5.30 p.m. There he was given first aid and he was referred to the Government Hospital at Chennai for further management and on 16.06.2005, PW1 laid complaint before Salavakkam Police Station at 6.00 a.m. 2[b] PW12, Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint, registered the case in Crime No.185 of 2005 under Section 307 IPC and lodged FIR, Ex.P14 and sent the same to the Court and placed copy before the Inspector of Police. On 15.06.2005, the injured was treated by PW8, Doctor at Chengalpet Government Hospital. She issued Ex.P7, Accident Register observing the following injuries on PW4. (a) A lacerated injury on the left forearm measuring 12 x 10 x 8 cm exposing cut muscle. (b) A lacerated injury on the left hand anterior region measuring 8 x 1 x 0.5 cm. (c) A lacerated njury on the right hand base of thumb measuring 6 x 2 x 1 cm. 2[c] PW1 was thereafter given treatment in Chennai Stanley Government Hospital on 15.06.2005 at 9.00 p.m. PW9, Doctor treated him and gave Ex.P9, Accident Register observing the nature of injuries as found by PW7. PW10, Doctor working in Stanley Government Hospital issued Ex.P9 wound certificate stating that PW4 sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P10 is the case sheet maintained for PW4. 2[d] After receiving the FIR, PW13, Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar and drew rough sketch, Ex.P15. He saw the blood stained stone, a portion of cement floor under cover of mahazar. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 16.06.2005, at about 12.30 p.m., he arrested the accused at Junction Road in Nelvai. He recorded confession statement voluntarily given by the accused in the presence of the witnesses. In pursuance of the confession statement, the accused produced a blood stained knife and a blood stained half-hand shirt, from the thorn shrub on the west of his house to the investigation officer which was seized under cover of mahazar. He sent the accused for judicial custody. He also despatched the case papers to the Court. On 17.06.2005, he examined the injured in the hospital. He also examined the doctors as well as the experts in forensic department. 3. After the prosecution evidence was over, the trial court questioned the appellant/accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. as regards undiscriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied the complicity to the offence. He did not examine any witnesses nor had he marked any documents. 4. After analysing the evidence and materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the appellant is before this Court. 5. The point for consideration is, "whether the prosecution has established the charges framed against the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt?". 4. After analysing the evidence and materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Challenging the judgment of conviction, the appellant is before this Court. 5. The point for consideration is, "whether the prosecution has established the charges framed against the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt?". Point:- 5[a] The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.M. Vijayakumaran would contend that apart from delay in lodging the FIR in this case, other inconsistencies and improbabilities are available in the prosecution case which would make the prosecution case doubtful. He has enlisted various improbabilities. The occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m. on 15.06.2005 but the complaint was lodged by PW1 at 6.00 a.m. on the next day, i.e. 16.06.2005. But the FIR was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 7.30 p.m. on 16.06.2005. 5[b] The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that neither the police personnel nor the concerned witnesses have assigned any reason for such a long delay, that the delay remains unexplained and that the occurrence, scene of crime, the accused and the witnesses should have been falsely furnished in the complaint. As far as the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, there is no reason available in the complaint. However, PW1 would say in his evidence that after taking treatment in Stanley Medical College Hospital at 9.00 p.m., he wrote the complaint in the hospital, that he left the hospital at 2.00 a.m. on the next day and came to his house and thereafter he went to the police station on the next day at 6.00 a.m. and lodged the complaint. 5[c] It is stated in the FIR that the occurrence was reported at 6.00 a.m. on 16.06.2005. The FIR reached the Judicial Magistrate residence at 7.30 p.m. on 16.06.2005. There is no explanation from PW12 and 13 as regards the delay. In the considered view of this Court, the unexplained delay for the FIR to reach the Court is fatal to the prosecution. The FIR reached the Judicial Magistrate residence at 7.30 p.m. on 16.06.2005. There is no explanation from PW12 and 13 as regards the delay. In the considered view of this Court, the unexplained delay for the FIR to reach the Court is fatal to the prosecution. 5[d] The next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution witnesses had taken sufficient time to lodge the complaint and only after treatment was taken by PW4, they fixed the accused and that the improbabilities available in this case would show that the occurrence is not true and the assailant must be somebody else. He also says about the shifting of the occurrence place by the prosecution witnesses which also supports the above said view. 5[e] Even though the complaint came to be lodged on 16.06.2005 at 6.00 a.m., PW4 got treatment on the date of occurrence in two hospitals. In Chengalpet Government Hospital, at about 5.30 p.m., on 15.06.2005, he was treated and in Stanley Medical College Hospital at 9.00 p.m. on the same day he was given treatment. In Ex.P7, the accident register issued in Chengalpet hospital, the injured has stated that he was assaulted by one known person on 15.06.2005 at 9.00 p.m. near his residence. But contrary to this statement, at 9.00 p.m. in the Stanley Medical College Hospital, he has stated that the occurrence took place near Uniply Company. Pws1 and 2 would say that the occurrence took place near Uniply Company. PW3 says that it took place on the way to the company, while the injured PW1 has stated that when he was standing near the company itself, the occurrence took place. PW2 has stated that the distance between the Nelvayal Village and Uniply Company is 3 kms. PW4 would say that Uniply Company is 1 km. away from his residence. 5[f] The above said versions and entries in the accident registers would show that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not consistent while they say about the scene of crime. In the opinion of this Court, the occurrence place has been shifted from one place to another. It is a remarkable improbability. Hence the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution witnesses namely PWs1 to 4 are not sure about the assailant and after fixing the accused, the complaint was lodged, has considerable force. In the opinion of this Court, the occurrence place has been shifted from one place to another. It is a remarkable improbability. Hence the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution witnesses namely PWs1 to 4 are not sure about the assailant and after fixing the accused, the complaint was lodged, has considerable force. One more circumstance as indicated by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the head constable of the Salavakkam Police Station received the accident register copy in Ex.P7 on 15.06.2005 itself. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the delay for lodging the FIR has been properly explained in the evidence of PW1 himself and there is no delay in lodging the FIR, that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are cogent and convincing and that the medical evidence is corroborating the evidence of the injured and hence there is nothing wrong on the part of the trial court for having found the appellant guilty of the offence and that the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. This Court has gone through the evidence and other materials available in this case with due care. As adverted to supra, the delay which is remaining unexplained would make the prosecution case doubtful and the shifting of occurrence place also weakens the case of the prosecution. Very many doubts have surfaced in this case and the benefit of which has to be extended to the appellant. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt which has arisen in this case. The charge framed against the appellant remains unproved. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. I answer this point accordingly. 8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed acquitting the appellant of all the charges framed against him. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them and the bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand discharged. The disposal of the case properties shall be in accordance with the direction of trial court.