ORDER Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellants are the accused in S.C. No. 101/2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai. By judgment, dated 27.5.2011, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as under: Rank of the accused Charge Finding Sentence 1st accused Under Section 294(b), 324(two counts), 436 read with 511, 307 read with 34, 436 and 302 IPC Not guilty Under Section 436 read with 511, 307 read with 34 I.P.C but guilty Under Section 294(b), 324 (2 counts),307, 436, 302 I.P.C i) Under Section294(b) I.P.C, fine of Rs. 500/-, in de fault to undergo 1 week R.I. ii) Under Section 324 I.P.C (2 counts), 1 year R.I for each count), fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in de fault to undergo 1 month R.I. iii) Under Section 307 I.P.C, 5 years R.I, fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo 1 year R.I. iv) Under Section 436 I.P.C, R.I for 5 years, fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in de fault to undergo 1 year R.I v) Under Section 302 I.P.C, R.I for life sentence and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in de fault to undergo 3 years R.I. 2nd accused Under Section.436 read with 511, 307 read with 34, 436, 302 read with 34 IPC Guilty Under Section 436 I.P.C. Not guilty Under Section. 436 read with 511, 307 read with 34, 302 read with 34 IPC Under Section. 436 I.P.C, R.I for 5 years, fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in de fault to undergo, 1 year R.I. In respect of A-1, the trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: (a) The brother’s wife of the first accused is one Yogeswari. P.W.3-Murugesan used to talk to her frequently. The first accused developed a suspicion that P.W.3 had developed illicit intimacy with Yogeswari and reprimanded him. Despite the said warning, on 5.6.2007, P.W.3 was found talking to Yogeswari. The first accused noticed the same. He shouted at the deceased in obscene language objecting to the said contact of P.W.3. (b) At that time, the first accused was armed with a wooden log. He attacked P.W.3 with wooden log on his head and caused simple hurt. P.W.3 immediately went to Alangudi Government Hospital. One Dr.Poominathan was on duty. The first accused noticed the same. He shouted at the deceased in obscene language objecting to the said contact of P.W.3. (b) At that time, the first accused was armed with a wooden log. He attacked P.W.3 with wooden log on his head and caused simple hurt. P.W.3 immediately went to Alangudi Government Hospital. One Dr.Poominathan was on duty. At 11.00 p.m on 5.6.2007, Dr.Boominathan examined P.W.3. At that time, P.W.3 told him that he was attacked at 5.30 p.m on 5.6.2007 by a known person with wooden log. He noticed a lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1 c.m on the occipital region of the head. For further treatment, P.W.3 was sent to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai. Exhibit P-9 is the wound certificate. (c) After P.W.3 had left for hospital, at 6.00 p.m, the accused attempted to set fire to the house of P.W.2. P.W.2 is the grand daughter of the deceased. P.W.1 is her paternal aunt. Further she prevented the accused 1 to 3 from setting fire to the house. Then accused 1 poured kerosene on P.W.2 and accused 2 and 3 attempted to set her ablaze. But P.W.2 attempted to escape from the place of occurrence. As narrated above, the first accused attacked her with the blunt portion of aruval on her left cheek and caused simple hurt. Then all the three accused set fire to the house of P.W.1. The entire house was burnt to ashes. The deceased Annammal attempted to prevent these accused to set fire to the house. At that time, accused 2 & 3 directed the first accused to attack the deceased. Immediately the first accused attacked her with wooden log on her head. Annammal fell in a pool of blood and died instantaneously. (d) After the occurrence, P.W.1 went to the Vadakadu Police Station at 6.00 a.m on 6.6.2007. P.W.10, was the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Vadakadu Police Station. He reduced the complaint into writing under Exhibit P-1. Based on the same, he registered a case in Cr. No. 63 of 2007 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 436, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Exhibit P-10 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Exhibit P-10 to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (e) P.W.11 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police Station. No. 63 of 2007 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 436, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Exhibit P-10 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Exhibit P-10 to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (e) P.W.11 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police Station. He took up the case for investigation and he reached the place of occurrence at 6.45 a.m. He prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence. Then he recovered burnt materials (M.Os.1 to 5) in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness under Exhibit P-3, mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 11.45 a.m and prepared Exhibit P-12-inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 3, 6 and few more witnesses. (f) P.W.8-Dr.Latha, was an Assistant Civil Surgeon, attached to Government Hospital at Pudukkottai. She conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 6.6.2007 at 3.00 p.m. Exhibit P-5 is the Postmortem Certificate, wherein, She has stated as follows: “Appearances found at the post-mortem:- Moderately nourished, symmetrical medium complexion female. External Injuries: Lacerated wound of 3 x 1 over right side forehead. 2. Lacerated wound of 4 x 1 over right parietal area. Opening of thorax: Heart-Pale, 20 ml fluid in pericardial cavity. Lungs-Congested right 420 gms, left -400 gms. Opening of abdomen: Liver – Congested small in size 600 gms. Spleen – Congested small in size 50 gms. Kidney – Congested small in size right 60 gms., left 70 gms. Hyoid bone and cervical vertebra intact. Opening of skull: Vessel clot of 3 x 2 over right temporal region. Blood clot of 2 x 2 over right parieto occipital area.” During postmortem, P.W.8 preserved stomach and its contents, intestine and its contents, liver and kidney for the purpose of examination and forwarded same in a preservative for the purpose of pathological examination. Exhibit P-6 is the Report from the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Tiruchirappalli. According to the said report, no poison was detected in the above internal organs of the deceased. Therefore, P.W.8 gave final opinion (Exhibit P-7) that the death was due to head injury. (g) On the same day at 4. p.m, P.W.11 arrested the accused 1 & 3 at Karukkakurichi village. According to the said report, no poison was detected in the above internal organs of the deceased. Therefore, P.W.8 gave final opinion (Exhibit P-7) that the death was due to head injury. (g) On the same day at 4. p.m, P.W.11 arrested the accused 1 & 3 at Karukkakurichi village. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval and stick. Based on the said confession, he took the police and witnesses to the said place and produced an aruval and a stick. P.W.11 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for remand. He handed over the material objects to the Court. On 8.7.2007, he examined P.W.3 and recorded his statement. On 26.7.2007 at 1. p.m at Neduvasal village, he arrested the second accused and sent him for judicial remand. Thereafter, he handed over investigation to his successor. (h) P.W.12 took up the case for further investigation on 2.9.2007. He examined the doctor and collected the medical records and examined few more witnesses. Finally, on completing investigation, on 6.11.2007, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as eight charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused pleaded innocence. Therefore they were put on trial. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 14 documents were exhibited and 6 material objects were marked. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 have been examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. But P.W.2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in part. P.W.4 has completely turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution in any manner. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court convicted the accused as referred to in the first paragraph of the judgment. That is how the appellants are before this Court with the present appeal. 6. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court convicted the accused as referred to in the first paragraph of the judgment. That is how the appellants are before this Court with the present appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. It is the positive case of the prosecution that the alleged occurrence was on 5.6.2007 at 5.30 p.m in which P.W.3-Murugesan was attacked by the first accused. Thereafter at 6.00 p.m, the second occurrence took place, in which P.W.1 was allegedly attacked by the first accused. In the course of the same transaction, it is alleged that the house of the deceased was set on fire and the deceased was also done to death. It is the further positive case of the prosecution that Exhibit P-1 First Information Report was prepared at 6.00 a.m. on the next day, that was on 6.6.2007 by P.W.1. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.1 on her own came to the Police Station and prepared Exhibit P-1-complaint. P.W.1 in her evidence has also stated that she, on her own accord, went to the Police Station and made a complaint. Thus, the earliest information, according to the prosecution, was made on 6.00 a.m on 6.6.2007 under Exhibit P-1. But curiously during cross-examination, P.W.10 has admitted that on 5.6.2007 at 8. p.m itself, P.W.3 came to the Police Station and made a complaint in respect of the entire occurrence. He has further stated that based on the said complaint, he issued a memo to him and sent him to the hospital for treatment. Exhibit P-9 is the Accident Register. This was entered by P.W.8-Dr.Latha. She has stated that on 5.6.2007 at 11.00 p.m, P.W.3-Murugesan came to the Government Hospital at Alangudi for treatment for the injuries sustained in the occurrence. He came with a Police memo. In Exhibit P-9, a Police medical memo has been mentioned as 24/medical/F4 PS/07 dated 5.6.2007. Thus, the evidence of the P.W.10 that P.W.3, Murugesn made a complaint on 5.6.2007 and based on the same, he referred him to the hospital with a police memo on 5.6.2007 itself must be true. He came with a Police memo. In Exhibit P-9, a Police medical memo has been mentioned as 24/medical/F4 PS/07 dated 5.6.2007. Thus, the evidence of the P.W.10 that P.W.3, Murugesn made a complaint on 5.6.2007 and based on the same, he referred him to the hospital with a police memo on 5.6.2007 itself must be true. If that be the case, according to the learned counsel, the said information which contains the truth has been suppressed. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer has also admitted during cross-examination that he came to know that on 5.6.2007 itself, P.W.3 had preferred a complaint in respect of the very same occurrence. But, neither P.W.10 nor P.W.11 has explained as to what had happened to the said complaint made by P.W.3. Thus, it is crystal clear that the earliest complaint given by P.W.3, in respect of the occurrence on 5.6.2007 has been suppressed by the prosecution. 8. In our considered opinion, in a case where there are number of accused, it is essential for the prosecution that the earliest information must be produced before the Court. But curiously, P.W.3 during cross-examination has stated that he did not go to the Police Station at all before going to the Alangudi Government Hospital. This evidence of P.W.3 cannot be believed because of the entry found in the Accident Register. 9. Nextly, P.W.2 speaks only about the attack made on her by the first accused. She has not stated anything about the setting fire to the house and the attack made on the deceased. That is the reason why she has been treated as hostile. P.W.3 also has not stated anything about the attack made on P.W.2 by the accused as well as setting fire to the deceased. P.W.5 claims to have witnessed the entire occurrence. She is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. According to her, after two hours of P.W.3 going to the hospital, the subsequent occurrence took place. But according to the prosecution case, after the first occurrence in which P.W.3 was allegedly attacked, within half an hour, the second occurrence had taken place. Thus, it is doubtful that P.W.5 would have seen the occurrence. Sofar as P.W.1 is concerned, she has spoken about the entire occurrence. According to her, there were no two occurrences. The entire occurrence was at one and the same time and in the same transaction. Thus, it is doubtful that P.W.5 would have seen the occurrence. Sofar as P.W.1 is concerned, she has spoken about the entire occurrence. According to her, there were no two occurrences. The entire occurrence was at one and the same time and in the same transaction. This is obviously in contradiction to the case of the prosecution itself, as it is narrated that the first occurrence, in which P.W.3 was attacked was at 5.30 p.m and after P.W.3 had gone to the hospital, after about half an hour, the second occurrence took place. But according to P.W.4, the entire occurrence was at one and the same time. Thus, she has also not come forward with the true version in consonance with the case of the prosecution. Thus, there are lot of contradictions between the witnesses. When there are such contradictions, at least, if there is no doubt regarding the First Information Report, the grain can be separated from the chaff and based on the same, conviction can be sustained. But in this case, admittedly, the earliest information has been suppressed. In view of all the above facts and circumstances, we find it difficult to accept the case of the prosecution and to sustain the conviction. Hence, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellants/accused are set aside and they are acquitted. The appellants 2 and 3/accused Nos.2 & 3 have already been released on bail. The first appellant/accused No. 1 is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or proceedings. The bail bond executed by accused 2 and 3 shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to them. Appeal allowed.