ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2010 dated 7.4.2010 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Usilampatti, dated 05.02.2010 in C.C. No. 46 of 2008 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three months S.I. and was imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo S.I. for the period of one month. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and there was no plausible explanation. He would further submit that except the testimony of interested witnesses, there was no independent witnesses on the said of prosecution though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 indicated that one Chithiraiselvan and Iyyappan were present in the place of occurrence and pacified the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 had been suppressed in this case and in the said circumstance, unsatisfactory explanation given for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint ought to have been viewed with suspicion and prosecution case ought to have been rejected by the Courts below. The learned counsel pointed out that there was motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Thus, the revision petitioner assailed conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below as unsustainable. 4. Per contra, the learned Government advocate supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and contended that the prosecution has proved the offence against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no scope for interference in this revision. 5. Heard the submissions and also perused the impugned judgments and materials placed on record. 6. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with his father and mother who were arrayed as A1 and A3 before the trial Court waylaid the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 when they proceeded to their house and attacked them with stick and stones. 7. 6. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with his father and mother who were arrayed as A1 and A3 before the trial Court waylaid the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 when they proceeded to their house and attacked them with stick and stones. 7. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence both oral and documentary, acquitted the third accused under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and convicted the first accused under Section 323 IPC and convicted the second accused under Section 325 IPC, however, acquitted them under Section 341 IPC. 8. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that there is an inordinate delay of 49 days in lodging the First Information Report with the police. In the FIR, it is stated by P.W.1 that at the intervention of elders who suggested to settle the dispute between the parties, he did not lodge the complaint and that is how there was a delay of 49 days in filing the complaint. P.W.1 has categorically stated in his chief examination that immediately after the incident, he went to Kattur Police Station and lodged the complaint to the police. In his cross examination, he has admitted that all the three went to Kattur Police Station on the date of occurrence at 12.30 p.m. and gave a complaint to one Murugan, Head Constable of Kattur Police Station. He has further stated that his wife Karuppayee and his son Anbazhagan signed as witnesses. 9. This version is confirmed by P.W.3 who has deposed in his cross examination to the effect that all the three went to Police station and gave a complaint but that complaint is not produced before the Court. There is no explanation as to what happened to the said report lodged by P.W.1 on the date of occurrence. 10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point to the testimony of P.W.9, Head Constable, who answered in the affirmative with regard to the suggestion put forth by the defence counsel that a complaint was lodged by P.W.1 on the date of occurrence itself, although he denied the suggestion that it was suppressed. 11. 10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point to the testimony of P.W.9, Head Constable, who answered in the affirmative with regard to the suggestion put forth by the defence counsel that a complaint was lodged by P.W.1 on the date of occurrence itself, although he denied the suggestion that it was suppressed. 11. It is also pertinent to point to the Accident Register marked as Exhibits P-2 and P-3 in respect of the injuries said to have been sustained by P.W.1 and 2 which indicated the intimation given by the hospital authorities to the police immediately after P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, it is evident that apart from the prosecution witnesses lodging the complaint to Kattur Police Station, the hospital authorities also, informed the police on the same date. But however, that report is neither filed nor there is any explanation for non-production of earlier report. 12. In the said circumstances, it has to be seen whether the explanation given by the prosecution for inordinate delay of 49 days is satisfactory or not. In the complaint, it is stated that inhabitants of the village were trying to have the matter compromised and therefore, the witnesses did not think fit to give a complaint. The said fact has not been disclosed to Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. None of those persons, who tried to compromise the matter, have been examined. The incident witnesses, who tried to pacify the prosecution witnesses during the incident, were also not examined. No other material is placed on record to substantiate the explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. 13. In criminal trial, one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay some times affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishments or even make fabrications as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilawarsingh v. State of Delhi reported in AIR 2007 SC 3234 : (2007) 12 SCC 641 . That delay defeats a chance to the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance and if there is a delay either coming before the police or before the Court , the Court would always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. That delay defeats a chance to the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance and if there is a delay either coming before the police or before the Court , the Court would always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, the incident stated in the FIR cannot be given due weight as the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 signed by P.Ws.2 and 3 as witnesses has been suppressed. The Courts below have not appreciated this fact and committed a glaring irregularity in believing the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 3 whose testimony was concededly contrary to the case of the prosecution as projected in FIR. 14. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that FIR does not indicate about the prior complaint given by the prosecution witnesses and it reads as though complaint is given for the first time after a delay of 49 days, it is true that the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that they are partisan witnesses or have any enmity with the accused persons. However, the testimony of such witnesses requires to be judged with more circumspection that too, when the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 is totally different from the story set out in FIR. The view taken by the Courts below cannot be accepted. 15. It is needless to point out that a prompt FIR, when there is practically no time to spin out a false story, is one towering circumstance which goes a long way to lend assurance to the claim of the prosecution. Inordinate delay in registration of FIR and further delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. 16. It is the case of the defence that they were falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity and Exhibit P-1 had come into existence after due deliberations. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 in my opinion was neatly fixed into the defence. 17. The delay in this case casts doubt on the prosecution version which is fatal to the prosecution. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 in my opinion was neatly fixed into the defence. 17. The delay in this case casts doubt on the prosecution version which is fatal to the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner and therefore he is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, in my considered view, conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below on the basis of unreliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Usilampatty, is set aside. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. Revision allowed.