JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 293 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By Judgment, dated 20.6.2006, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Muniyandi. The wife of the accused is one Pothum Ponnu. The deceased had developed illicit intimacy with Pothum Ponnu. This came to the knowledge of the accused and the same resulted in ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased. On few occasions, the accused warned the deceased not to have any contact with his wife. But, the deceased did not stop. In this regard there was a village panchayat, some time before the alleged occurrence in this regard. In the said panchayat, the villagers reprimanded both the deceased as well as the wife of the accused and warned them not to continue to have such illicit relationship. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he is a resident of P.S. Nagar, Melavalavu, in Melur Taluk. P.W.2 is the cousin of the deceased. He is a resident of Manapatti Village. PW3 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.4 is the father in law of the deceased. 3. On 7.10.2003, at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.2 had come to the house of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 to 3 and other inmates were sitting just in front of the house of P.W.1 and they were talking to each other. At about 10.30 p.m. the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and he was armed with an aruval. He shouted at P.W.1 saying that his brother was spoiling his family, despite warning and that he continued to have illicit relationship with his wife. He shouted as to where the deceased was. P.W.1 and Others told him that the deceased was not available at home. Therefore, the accused returned and he was rushing towards Karuppu Kovil. He shouted at P.W.1 saying that his brother was spoiling his family, despite warning and that he continued to have illicit relationship with his wife. He shouted as to where the deceased was. P.W.1 and Others told him that the deceased was not available at home. Therefore, the accused returned and he was rushing towards Karuppu Kovil. Since the accused was going angrily with aruval in his hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed him by taking a torch light. It was dead dark. With the use of torch light, P.Ws.1 and 2 managed to follow the accused to a distance of about 2 kms. The deceased was sitting on the bank of the river. On seeing him, the accused started to attack him with aruval. P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the occurrence by flashing the torch light. They could not rescue the deceased, because the accused was cutting him indiscriminately with aruval with so much of anger. After the deceased had fallen unconscious, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. 4. P.Ws.1 and 2 went near the deceased and found that he was dead. According to P.W.1, he along with P.W.2 was in deep sorrow for about 1 ½ hours. Thereafter, leaving P.W.2 on the place of occurrence, P.W.1 returned to his house and informed P.Ws.3 and 4 about the occurrence. P.W.4 is the father-in-law of the deceased. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 along with the other villagers rushed to the place of occurrence. 5. According to P.W.1, some of the villagers requested not to give complaint in respect of the murder, since the accused happened to be their Pangali. Then at 8.00 a.m. on 8.10.2003, P.W.1 proceeded to the police Station and made a complaint under Exhibit P-1. PW7 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Melavalavu Police Station. He registered a case on the said complaint in Cr. No. 132 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-7 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Exhibits P-1 and P-7 to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 6. PW9, was the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation at 8.30 a.m. On 8.10.2003. At 9.15 a.m. He prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and Another witness. 6. PW9, was the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation at 8.30 a.m. On 8.10.2003. At 9.15 a.m. He prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and Another witness. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth and the dress materials found on the body of the deceased under a mahazar. Then he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. During which, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4. Exhibit P-13 is the inquest report. Then he forwarded the body for postmortem. 7. P.W.5, doctor Asokan, attached the Government Hospital, Melur, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 1.15 p.m. on 8.10.2003 and found the following injuries;- “1. An incised wound back of the neck 4 x 1 x 1 cm. 2. An incised wound on occipital region 5 x 1 cm. 3. An incised wound 5 x 1 cm back of neck. 4. An incised wound 6 x 1 cm bone depth right (N.C) parietal region. 5. A contusion in the upper lip. 6. Abrasion left ear 2 x 1 cm.” Exhibit P-2 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would have appear to have died by the cumulative effect of all the injuries, particularly the injury to the brain. 8. PW9 continued the investigation and examined few more witnesses. He arrested the accused on 8.10.2003, at 4.00 p.m near the High School at Melur Village in the presence of P.W.6 and Another witness. On such arrest he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took PW9 and the witnesses to the said place and produced the aruval (MO1) from the bush. At that time, the accused also had a wound near his right eye. Therefore, PW9 sent him to the hospital for treatment and then sent him to Court for Judicial remand. At his request, the bloodstain earth and aruval were sent for chemical examination. Exhibit P-10, is the chemical analyst report and Exhibit P-11 is the Serologist Report. As per the said report, the bloodstain found on the bill hook was of ‘A’ group of human blood. The earth also contain ‘A’ group human blood. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 9. Exhibit P-10, is the chemical analyst report and Exhibit P-11 is the Serologist Report. As per the said report, the bloodstain found on the bill hook was of ‘A’ group of human blood. The earth also contain ‘A’ group human blood. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 9. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded innocence and therefore, he was put on trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and 13 documents were exhibited besides 14 material objects. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. 10. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied them as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side or mark any document. 11. Having considering the above materials, the Trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly punished him. That is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 13. As we have already pointed out, the prosecution relies mainly on the evidence of P.Ws.1and 2, who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.1 and 2 have been planted falsely as eyewitnesses and their evidences cannot be believed at all. The learned counsel would submit that though the occurrence is stated to have taken place at 11.45 p.m. on 7.10.2003, the complaint in this case was given only on 8.10.2003 at 8.00 a.m. Absolutely, there is no plausible explanation for the said delay. To the contrary, it is stated by P.Ws.1 to 4, that some of the villagers wanted P.W.1 not to give any complaint and that is the reason why the complaint was not preferred immediately. The learned counsel would submit this explanation cannot be accepted at all. 14. The learned counsel would further point out that the occurrence had happened in a lonely place and there was no light available anywhere near the place of occurrence. Even, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, they could see the occurrence only by flashing the torch light. The learned counsel would submit this explanation cannot be accepted at all. 14. The learned counsel would further point out that the occurrence had happened in a lonely place and there was no light available anywhere near the place of occurrence. Even, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, they could see the occurrence only by flashing the torch light. The learned counsel would further submit that it is highly unbelievable that for about 2 kms distance, P.Ws.1 and 2 would have been following the accused without raising any alarm so as to caution the deceased to escape. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 deserve to be accepted, as there are no valid reasons to reject their evidences. He would further submit that the delay has been duly explained by the prosecution. He would further submit that the recovery of MO1 from the hide out at the instance of the accused is yet another incriminating circumstance against the accused. From all these evidences, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court did not require any interference at the hands of this Court, he contended. 16. We have considered the above submissions. As we have already narrated, according to the prosecution case, the occurrence is said to have taken place at 11.45 p.m. on 7.10.2003. It is stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It is not as though they are third parties to the deceased, P.W.1 is the brother and P.W.2 is his cousin. Apart from that, P.W.2 is a graduate having BA degree to his credit, as it is stated by P.W.1. Had it been true that they were eyewitness to the occurrence, certainly by all probabilities, they would have gone to the police station to make a complaint immediately. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is hardly half a kilometer, as it is admitted by P.W.1. In Exhibit P-7, the First Information Report, it is stated that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 2 kms. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is hardly half a kilometer, as it is admitted by P.W.1. In Exhibit P-7, the First Information Report, it is stated that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 2 kms. Assuming that the distance between the said places is only 2 kms, nothing would have prevented P.Ws.1 and 2 to go to the police station to prefer the complaint immediately. But, P.W.1 has stated that some of the villagers wanted him not to give any complaint to the police immediately, because the accused happened to be a Pangali of P.W.1. During cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that he could not say as to who are all the villagers who wanted him not to give complaint. Considering the fact that it is a gruesome murder, it is highly unbelievable that P.Ws.1 and 2 would have been persuaded by the villagers not to make any complaint at all to the police. Therefore, this explanation offered by P.W.1 for delay cannot be accepted at all. 17. It is in evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that at the place of occurrence, nearly about 20 villagers gathered, as soon as P.W.1 told P.Ws.3 and 4 about the occurrence. Even then, complaint was not preferred immediately. At least, early in the morning complaint could have been given. But, the complaint was given only at 8.00 a.m. P.W.4 has admitted during cross-examination that before going to the police station to prefer complaint, the relatives of the deceased had a small meeting, in which it was decided as to how to give complaint and thereafter only the above complaint given. This would clearly indicate that by means of deliberation and because of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased, the complaint has been preferred implicating the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. This theory projected by the accused cannot be ruled out. 18. Nextly, the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also highly unbelievable. Admittedly, the occurrence place was a lonely place. The distance between the house of P.W.1 and the place of occurrence is 2 kms, as it is admitted by P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that for such a long distance of 2 kms, P.Ws.1 and 2 were following the deceased by flashing the torch light. Admittedly, the occurrence place was a lonely place. The distance between the house of P.W.1 and the place of occurrence is 2 kms, as it is admitted by P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that for such a long distance of 2 kms, P.Ws.1 and 2 were following the deceased by flashing the torch light. Had it been true, certainly, P.Ws.1 and 2 would have raised alarm thereby cautioning the deceased to escape. Further, it is not as though any one of the inmates of the house of the deceased told that the deceased had gone to the place of occurrence. It is not known as to how the accused came to the know that the deceased was at the place of occurrence. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they saw the deceased being cut with aruval by the accused only by flashing the torch light. After the occurrence, P.W.1 told that he was sitting near the dead body for about 1 ½ hrs. This conduct is also unbelievable on the part of P.W.1. In short, it is difficult to believe that P.Ws.1 and 2 would have witnessed the occurrence. Their evidences do not gain the confidence of this Court at all. Both the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 are liable to be rejected as unbelievable and there is no other evidence available on record so as to hold the accused guilty. 19. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to acquit the accused. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 293 of 2005, dated 20.6.2006 are set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge. The bail bond executed if any shall stand discharged and the fine amount paid if any shall be refunded. Appeal allowed.