Judgment 1. This Memorandum of Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2012 and made in S.C.No.79 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Sessions Division, at Nagercoil convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC and seven years of rigorous imprisonment (two counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count and in default, to undergo two years of SI for each count for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four years. 2. PW.14 the Inspector of Police attached to Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District has laid a final report against the appellant/accused alleging that he had committed the offences punishable under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment (Amended Act) 2002 and under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) (2 counts) and 302 of IPC. 3. The learned Principal Session Judge at Kanyakumari Session Division, Nagercoil has framed four charges. In so far as the first charge under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment (Amended) Act 2002 is concerned, the appellant/accused has been acquitted as the prosecuting agency has not established the motive theory and in so far as the other three charges are concerned, the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as afore stated. 4. Conspectus of facts :- (a) PW.1 Pushpalatha is the wife of the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar. PW.4 is their minor daughter. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased. PW.5 – Jebastin is the brother of PW.1. They are all the residents of semantharaivilai. The appellant is also the resident of the same village. The alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 13.05.2009 at 6.30 P.M on the backyard of the house of PW.1 near their bath room. (b) The case of the prosecution is that a few days before the occurrence, the appellant/accused, whenever happened to cross the house of PW.1, used to make some gesture with bad intention towards PW.1. (b) The case of the prosecution is that a few days before the occurrence, the appellant/accused, whenever happened to cross the house of PW.1, used to make some gesture with bad intention towards PW.1. This fact was informed to the deceased by PW.1 in the morning of 13.05.2009 and on hearing this, the deceased being the husband of PW.1, at about 12 noon had been to the house of the appellant/accused and warmed him severely. This was also intimated to PW.1 by the deceased saying that the appellant hereafter would not come on her way. (c) On the same day, at about 6.30 P.M. when PW.1, her husband (deceased) PW.2, being the mother of the deceased and PW.4, were talking with each other on the backyard their house near the bath room, their three children including PW.4 Selvi Reculine Nisha and one Suresh Kumar, as well as the brother of the deceased were also present. Suddenly the appellant Maria David Raj came there with an Aakathi and asked the deceased about his authority of threatening him, on the instigation of his wife PW.1 by uttering the following words:- “TAMIL” (d) By saying so, he had aimed a cut with aakathi on the neck of the deceased. When the deceased bent down he had escaped from the attack. However that cut fell on his left eye brow and caused injury. After receiving the cut injury on the left eye brow, the deceased was trying to escape from the hands of the appellant. While so the appellant had cut on the back of his left knee. After receiving the cut injury, the deceased had fallen down in a spool of blood. When PW.1, PW.2 and her brother in law were trying to rescue the deceased, the appellant had severely threatned them with aruval saying that he would cut them also. Thereafter the appellant had fled away from the place of occurrence with the weapon. (e) After completion of the occurrence, Suresh Kumar who is the brother of the deceased had brought a car and the deceased was taken to Franklin Hospital at 9.30 P.M. PW.7, doctor Franklin Gastro, who was on duty in the hospital had examined the injuries sustained by him. During the course of his examination, PW.7 had found that his breathing was almost stopped and his blood pressure was not recordable. No pulse. During the course of his examination, PW.7 had found that his breathing was almost stopped and his blood pressure was not recordable. No pulse. Pupils were found dilated and not re-acted to light. However he had tried to make the heart functiong along with his supporting staff by fixing the artificial breathing appartus and subsequently his pulse was found feeble and thereafter, he had given an intimation to the police. When the deceased was brought to him, he had found the following three injuries on his person:- Injuries:- 1. 15 x 10cm cut injury over posterior aspect of left knee joint, exposing the joint and fracture of upper Tibia. 2. 5 x 3 cm laterated injury over left eyebrow 3. Swelling of left upper eyelid. (f) In this connection, PW.7 had given an intimation to Sub Inspector of Police, Karunkal Police station. On 14.09.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. PW.13 Head Constable attached to Karunkal Police station had received a message over phone from Franklin Hospital informing that Ragu Chandra Kumar belonging to Devicode had been admitted with cut injuries. On receipt of the message, PW.13 had been to the said hospital at 01.15 am in the night and found the said Ragu Chandra Kumar undergoing treatment. Since he was in critical condition, his wife PW.1 pushpalatha had given a written complaint to PW.13 at 2.15 am and on receipt of the said complaint PW.13 came down to Karungal Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.180 of 2009 under Sections 294(b) 307 and 507 (ii) of IPC. The printed FIR was marked as P14. Then he had sent Ex.P1 and Ex.P14 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eranial. He had also submitted the copies of the complaint and the first information report to PW14 - Inspector of Police for investigation. The printed FIR was marked as P14. Then he had sent Ex.P1 and Ex.P14 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eranial. He had also submitted the copies of the complaint and the first information report to PW14 - Inspector of Police for investigation. On receipt of the copies of Ex.P1 and Ex.P14 at 2.30 am on 14.05.2009, from PW.13, PW.14 had started conducting of investigation and subsequently he had been to the place of occurrence at about 3.00 a.m. and inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW.9, suresh and one Sasidoss and prepared an observation Mahazar – Ex.P15 and a rough sketch under Ex.P16 and during the course of his investigation he had collected some blood stained earth under MO.5 and sample earth under MO.6 from the place of occurrence in the presence of above said witnesses under the cover of a seizer Mahazar Ex.P17. (g) On 14.05.2009 at about 5.45 a.m. PW.7 had declared the death of the deceased despite medical treatment. In this regard he had given a death intimation – (Ex.P8) to PW.14. Thereafter, PW.7 had requested PW.14 to make necessary arrangements to transfer the dead body of the deceased for Post Mortem examination to Kanyakumai Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam. On receipt of the intimation, PW.14 went to the hospital at 10.00 a.m. and started conducting of inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Panchayatdars and concluded the same at 12 noon and prepared a report under Ex.P18. Subsequently he had sent the dead body along with a requisition Ex.P2 to the Government Hospital, Asari Pallam through one Head Constable, Mr. Selvaraj. Then he had altered the Section of law to one under Section 302 of I.P.C. An express report under Ex.P19 to that effect was sent to Court through PW.10 Head Constable. PW.3, Doctor Rajesh, Assistant Professor, Forensic Sciences Department, Government General Hospital, Kanyakumari had received the said requisition from PW.14 under Ex.P2 and in pursuant to the requisition had started conducting of Post Mortem examination on the body of the deceased at 02.00 P.M. on 14.05.2005. During the course of his examination, he had found the following anti-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased both external as well as internal. 1) 3 cm long horizontal sutured cut would seen over the outer half of left eye brow. During the course of his examination, he had found the following anti-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased both external as well as internal. 1) 3 cm long horizontal sutured cut would seen over the outer half of left eye brow. O/E, it is skin thick left upper eye lid found bruised. 2) ½ x ½ cm abrasion seen below the right eye. 3) 3x2 cm abrasion seen over the back of right elbow. 4) 6X3 cm abrasion seen over the upper half of front of right fore arm. 5) 5 x 3 cm abrasion seen just below the right knee. 6) 17 cm long horizontal sutured cut would seen over the back of left knee. O/E the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves and the lateral condyle of lower end of left femur noted. 7) 10 x 8 cm abrasion seen over the outer aspect and back of left elbow. 6 x 5 contusion seen over the back of left wrist. All the above said injuries are reddish in colour. O/D Scalp, skull and dura:- Sub Scalpal bruishing noted over left fronto parietal region measuring 8 x 6 cm. Other findings noted:- Heart : Normal coronaries patent Lungs : Normal C/S pale. Basal consolidation of both lower lobes noted. Hyoid Bone : Intact Stomach : 50ml of dark brown colour fluid. Nil specific smell. Mucosa pale. Liver & Spleen : Normal C/S congested. Kidneys : Normal C/S pale. Small intesine : 20 ml of dark brown colour fluid. Nil specific smell. Mucosa pale. Bladder : Empty Brain : Normal C/S pale. Viscera : Preserved. (h) The Post Mortem was concluded at 3.00 p.m. After completion of post mortem examination PW.3 had issued a certificate under Ex.P3. (i) The Viscera which was preserved during the post mortem examination was sent to Regional Forensic Sciences Department, Thirunelveli for examination. On examination of Stomach and Contents, Intestine and contents, Liver and Kidney, Preservative, the Scientific Assistant Grade No.1 has stated in his report Ex.P5 that the above items were examined but poison was not detected in any of them. (j) Based on Ex.P5, PW.3 had given his final opinion under Ex.P4, saying that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injury to the left lower limb. Thereafter, PW.14 had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (j) Based on Ex.P5, PW.3 had given his final opinion under Ex.P4, saying that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injury to the left lower limb. Thereafter, PW.14 had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (k) That, on 15.05.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. on specific information, PW.14 had arrested the appellant Mariya David Raj at Kulithurai Railway Station in the presence of PW.5 Jebastin and another witness. On interrogation, the appellant had voluntarily come forward and given a confessional statement, which was reduced into writing, by PW.14 in the presence of the above said witnesses and on the basis of his disclosures statement, under Ex.P6 he had recovered the following incriminating articles:- M.O.1 : Vettaruval M.O.2 : Shirt M.O.3 : Dhoti M.O.4 : Series Photos and negatives M.O.5 : Blood Stained earth M.O.6 : Sample earth M.O.7 : Lungi (l) On the same day, on the basis of his disclosure statement PW14 had recovered MO.1 and MO.2 under the cover of a seizure mahazar Ex.P7. The incriminating articles were sent to Regional Forensic Sciences Department, Thirunelveli. Ex.P21 is the Biological Report dated 25.06.2009. Ex.P22 is the Chemical Analysis Report, dated 31.08.2009. Ex.P23 is the Serology Report, dated 28.07.2009. In Ex.P21 Bio Logical report, it is stated that blood was detected on each of items 1 to 4 (both inclusive) and 6 but not on items 5. (m) In Ex.P23, serology report it is stated that in Bill hook, dhoti, Shirt, Earth etc, and lungi blood was detected and the same was found human origin and grouped as “B”. In so far as the blood detected on Bill hook is concerned it is stated that the result of grouping test is inconclusive. (n) During the course of his investigation PW.14 had also engaged PW.12 Police Photographer and he had also taken photographs, M.O.4 series on the dead body as well as on the place of occurrence. After completion of his investigation, PW.14 has laid a final report on 31.07.2009 as against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. 5. (n) During the course of his investigation PW.14 had also engaged PW.12 Police Photographer and he had also taken photographs, M.O.4 series on the dead body as well as on the place of occurrence. After completion of his investigation, PW.14 has laid a final report on 31.07.2009 as against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. 5. When the incriminating circumstances arising from the testimonials of prosecution witnesses were put to the appellant for his explanation, during the proceedings under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. while denying their evidences he had replied that on 13th when he was standing in Devicode bus stop, there arose a dispute and during the course of the scuffling he had sustained injury on his head and on account of this reason, he was getting treatment as an in patient at the Government Hospital, Kolachal. While so, he was taken by the Police on 15th and foisted this case against him. 6. On evaluating the evidences of oral and documentary, the learned Principal Session Judge, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari Sessions Division had found the appellant guilty under Sections 294(b) 506(2) and 302 of I.P.C, convicted and sentenced him as afore stated. 7. Having been aggreived by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant, Maria David Raj stands before this Court with this appeal. 8. Heard Mr. V. Gopinath learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. P. Andiraj, learned counsel who is on record for the appellant and Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 9. As observed in the opening paragraphs, the prosecuting Agency has indicted the appellant Maria David Raj as if he had committed the offences Punishable under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women’s Harassment (amended) Act 2002 and under Sections 294(b) 506(2) (two counts) and 302 of I.P.C. The learned Principal and Session Judge has found that the appellant was not guilty under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women’s Harassment (amended) act 2002 and in respect of the remaining three charges, he has found the appellant guilty. 10. In this connection Mr. B. Gopinath, the learned senior counsel has argued that the whole edifice of the prosecution story has been constructed on the allegation that prior to the occurrence the appellant used to make gestures towards PW.1 with bad intention and thereby harassed. 10. In this connection Mr. B. Gopinath, the learned senior counsel has argued that the whole edifice of the prosecution story has been constructed on the allegation that prior to the occurrence the appellant used to make gestures towards PW.1 with bad intention and thereby harassed. He has also maintained that the deceased being the husband of P.W.1, on being informed by PW.1, had been to the house of the appellant on 13.5.2009 at 12 noon and warned him severely not to come on the way his wife. 11. According to the case of the prosecution, there is motive for the occurrence and enraged on the warning given by the deceased the appellant had gone to the house of PW.1 at 6.30 P.M. on 30.05.2009 and hacked the deceased to death by inflicting cut injuries as described in the Post Mortem Certificate under Ex.P3. 12. Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel has further adverted to that when the charge under Section 4 of Prohibition of Women Harassment (amended act) 2002 is not proved, then the entire prosecution story would be collapsed. He has also maintained that the "motive" would always be relegated to the secondary place and it would be very difficult to prove it's existence in the mind of the culprit. 13. Secondly he has argued that the contents of Ex.P1 First Information Report has not been satisfactorily substantiated by the prosecuting Agency. He has submitted further that Ex.P1, the so called complaint said to have been lodged by PW.1 before PW.13, has been shrouded with suspicious circumstances and when Ex.P1 itself is in moon shine, the onus is on the prosecuting agency to dispell the suspicion. He has also submitted that Ex.P1 is the pivot of the entire case and when the allegations narrated therein were shaken by the witnesses of prosecution the subsistence, and trust worthiness’ as well as the sanctity attached to Ex.P1 have become pale into insignificance. Therefore, he has urged this Court that Ex.P1 might be discarded. 14. Ex.P1 is the written complaint said to have been lodged by PW.1 before PW.13 on 14.05.2009 at 1.15 am. Therefore, he has urged this Court that Ex.P1 might be discarded. 14. Ex.P1 is the written complaint said to have been lodged by PW.1 before PW.13 on 14.05.2009 at 1.15 am. Beneath the signature of PW.1 Pushpalatha PW13 has made the following endorsement:- “Received the petition on 14.05.2009 at 1.15 at Franklin Hospital, Parvathapuram and returned to station at 00.2.15 hours and registered a case in Karunkal Police Station in Crime No.180 of 2009 under Section 294(b), 307, 506(2) of I.P.C.” In this regard, we find that it may be relevant to refer the evidence of PW.1. She says in her chief examination that on reaching Franklin Hospital, the Police came there, before whom she had presented a complaint. But she did not say at what time she had lodged the complaint before the police. 15. With reference to First Information Report, the evidence of PW.1, PW.13 and PW.14 shall have to be read together. As per the case of prosecution, the occurrence is said to have been taken place at 6.30 P.M. on 13.05.2009. PW.7 Doctor Franklin Gastro says that the deceased was brought to him when he was present in the hospital at 9.30 P.M. If it is true, the Police people could not have reached the hospital at 9.30 P.M. As adumbrated supra, PW.1 never specified the time at which the complaint was lodged. Further PW.13 Head Constable Vaikundathass is not clear with regard to the receipt of First Information from PW.1. Probably he might have been in the state of vavouring mind, when he was standing in the witness box. That is why at the first instance he has deposed that at 9.00 a.m. on 14.05.2009, when he was present in the Police Station, he had received a telephonic call from Franklin Hospital through which, he was informed that the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar had been admitted with cut injuries. It is significant to note here that again with reference to the time at which he had reached the Hospital, he would state that at about 1.15 a.m., in the mid night he had been to Frankling Hospital to see the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar who was undergoing treatment. But unfortunately he was not in a condition to speak. Therefore, he had received a written complaint from PW.1 at 2.15 a.m. and subsequently the case came to be registered in Crime No.180 of 2009. 16. But unfortunately he was not in a condition to speak. Therefore, he had received a written complaint from PW.1 at 2.15 a.m. and subsequently the case came to be registered in Crime No.180 of 2009. 16. In her cross examination of PW.1 has stated that it would be 9.00 P.M. when she had reached the Hospital. Again she would state that on the way to the hospital, the car was stopped at Karunkal Police Station and she had informed the Police about the incident, for which she was advised to admit the injured first in the Hospital and that the police people would come later. At that time, the time would be 7.15 or 7.30 P.M. 17. With reference to this factum, Mr. Gopinath, learned senior counsel has adverted to that at 7.15 or 7.30 p.m. on 13.05.2009 the police was informed by PW.1 about the occurrence. Therefore, the law was set in motion on the information given by PW.1. So, on receipt of information, it must be the duty of the Police Officer, who is in charge of the Police Station, to enter the information in the general diary, which is being maintained in the Police Station and thereafter, the case in this regard should have immediately been registered based on the oral information given by PW.1. He has also submitted that as contemplated under Section 154 code of Criminal Procedure, an information about a crime could be made either orally or in writing or through telephonic message. Therefore, it is not the matter about the mode of receipt of information. This has not been refuted by the prosecuting agency. After coming to the evidence of PW.13, it is apparent that a question was put to him in his cross examination, as to whether he had stated before the investigating officer when he was examined under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. that the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar, at 2.15 P.M. on 14.05.2009 had appeared in person and lodged a complaint and based on his complaint a case was registered. This question was empathically denied by PW.13. 18. In his statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C given before PW.14 he has stated as under:- “TAMIL” 19. We know the utility of the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., as well as the volume of its effect. This question was empathically denied by PW.13. 18. In his statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C given before PW.14 he has stated as under:- “TAMIL” 19. We know the utility of the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., as well as the volume of its effect. When his statement as aforestated was confronted with him by the learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the appellant in the trial Court, P.W.13 has emphatically denied his own statement. If it is so, we may presume that P.W.13 Head Constable was not at all examined by P.W.14, the investigating officer and his statement was also not recorded. 20. It is mandatory on the part of the prosecuting agency to supply copies of 161(3) statements, which were recorded from the witnesses by the investigating officer, to the accused so as to enable him to set up his defence effectively. 21. Apart from this, the statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., can be subjected to contradiction or omission. It does not stand alone and it must be read in its proper context along with the remaining provisions of the Code. 22. As observed by the Apex Court in Omkar Namdeo Jadhao and others vs. Seecond Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana and another (1996) 7 SCC 498 ) the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., can be used at the trial only for contradiction or omission when the witness is examined in the court. 23. We do know the fact that undue importance cannot be given to the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., as it is not an evidence, but the circumstance as afore discussed warrants us to use the statement of P.W.13 only for the limited purpose of impeaching his credibility. Our view has been fully secured and supported by Ram Swaroop (2004) 13 SCC 134 ). 24. In view of the answer given by PW.13 in his cross examination with reference to the admission before the investigation officer, we find that his evidence is deserved to be impeached. Being a responsible officer who is placed in charge of the Police Station is expected to be fair and self conscious, understanding his responsibility fully. Because the first information is given in respect of a heinous crime. Being a responsible officer who is placed in charge of the Police Station is expected to be fair and self conscious, understanding his responsibility fully. Because the first information is given in respect of a heinous crime. When the said officer is summoned by the Court to tender evidence with respect to the complaint, the answer, must be within the limit of his knowledge and relevant to the facts. If his answer seems to be decorative then it is liable to be impeached. We therefore find that no amount of evidentiary value could be attached to the evidence of PW.13. With regard to the earliest information given by PW.1 before Karunkal Police Station on her way to Franklin Hospital, PW.13 did not speak anything. It may also be relevant to note here that PW.1 in her cross examination has stated that she did not know about the alleged complaint given by her husband before the Karunkal Police Station. She has also admitted that when her husband was taken to the hospital, he was alive. With reference to this, Mr. Gopinath, learned senior counsel has submitted that the complaint lodged by the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar has been purposely burked by the prosecuting agency for the reasons best known to them. 25. Coming to the evidence PW.14 investigating officer, he has stated in his cross examination that this case would not reveal the fact that the deceased Regu Chandra Kumar had appeared in person before Karunkal Police Station and lodged a complaint before PW.13. In this connection PW.14 would state that on his instruction, during the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police had wrongly recorded the statement of PW.13 saying that the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar had appeared in Karunkal Police Station and lodged a complaint at 2.15 am on 14.05.2009. The answer given by PW.14 seems to be more interesting by adding details that are not true. The Sub Inspector of Police, who is said to have recorded the statement of PW.13 has not been examined as a witness. 26. The defence case is that on 13.05.2009 parliament election was taken place and in that election three major political parties were contesting. For the said parliament election, one of the election booths was put up at Devicode, Udaya Marthandam. The deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar was belonging to a major political party. 26. The defence case is that on 13.05.2009 parliament election was taken place and in that election three major political parties were contesting. For the said parliament election, one of the election booths was put up at Devicode, Udaya Marthandam. The deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar was belonging to a major political party. On the other hand, the appellant is belonging to other major political party. Therefore, on the ground of political enmity a rioting was taken place and in the said rioting an un identifiable group had assaulted both the deceased as well as the appellant/accused, and both of them had sustained injuries and that the deceased had subsequently succumbed to injuries while he was under going treatment in the hospital for which the appellant cannot be made as a scape goat. 27. Mr. B. Gopinath learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.14, the investigating officer. As afore stated, in the rioting, the accused had also received injuries over his person and he was under going treatment at Praveen Hospital, at Kolachel. In this connection, when a question was put to PW.14 he has admitted that it was brought to his knowledge that the accused had sustained injuries, but he has tilted himself and said that he was not informed as to when and by whom the injuries were inflicted on him. He has also stated that during the course of his investigation he came to know that the appellant had undergone treatment for the injuries sustained by him at Praveen Hospital, at Kolachal. He has also stated that he had also examined Dr. Praveen, who had treated the appellant on 13.07.2004. Despite it is the duty of the prosecuting agency to explain the injuries sustained by the appellant, PW.14 the investigation officer has miserably failed to explain this fact and his answer seems to be irresponsible and recalcitrant. 28. Mr. B. Gopinath while advancing his argument has raised a serious question that when the appellant had been undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him in a mobclash in connection with the parliament Election which took place on 13.05.2009, how he could have committed the crime. 28. Mr. B. Gopinath while advancing his argument has raised a serious question that when the appellant had been undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained by him in a mobclash in connection with the parliament Election which took place on 13.05.2009, how he could have committed the crime. He has also invited our attention to the explanation given by the appellant, during the proceedings under Section 313(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has stated that when he was standing at Devicode bus stop, a riot was taken place and in the said rioting, he had sustained injuries over his head and thereafter he was taken to kollachal Government Hospital and took treatment. While so, he was taken by the police and implicated in this case. It is not the question as to whether he was undergoing treatment in Praveen Hospital or Government Hospital at Kollachal, but is the question as to whether he had sustained injuries or not. If the answer is yes, the prosecution is bound to explain the circumstance in which he had sustained injuries. Since PW.14 investigating office has affirmed the injuries is it not his duty to explain the circumstance with regard to when and where? 29. Mr. B. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also argued about the evidence of PW.12 Mr. Abathukatha Pillai, Police photographer. He has contended that at about 2.15 a.m. on 14.05.2009 PW.12 had received information from Karunkal Police Station in connection with the case in Crime No.180 of 2009. On receipt of the information he had been to the place of occurrence at 3.15 a.m. and took photographs which are marked as M.O. 4 series. But he has not stated as to who had identified the place of occurrence. 30. Mr. Gopinath, has also argued that the place of occurrence has not been specifically mentioned by the prosecution and that the occurrence would not have been taken place at the backyard of the house of PW.1 i.e. in front of their bath room. It is apparent that one Suresh Kumar, who is also said to be one of the eye witnesses, had brought the car after the completion of the occurrence. That Suresh Kumar is an important witness, but he was not examined. Car driver was also not examined to prove the case especially efficacious in bringing more clarity in the prosecution case. 31. That Suresh Kumar is an important witness, but he was not examined. Car driver was also not examined to prove the case especially efficacious in bringing more clarity in the prosecution case. 31. PW.9 Suresh is the brother-in-law of PW.1. According to PW.14, investigating Officer he had inspected the place of occurrence at 3.15 a.m. on 14.05.2009 even though several houses have been cited in Ex.P16 rough sketch, nobody has been examined, with reference to the occurence. PW.9 has stated that on 14.05.2009 in the morning in order to go to the work place at Thiruvananthapuram he was proceeding to his house from his mother-in-law's house at Kottavilai. While so, the police people were standing near the house of Ragu Chandra Kumar. On seeing him, they called and asked to put his signature and therefore he had signed. He did not know, whether anybody had signed along with him. He has also identified his signature in the Mahazar, which was marked as Ex.P11 in P12. In the cross examination he has given a total good bue to his Chief Examination. In this connection he was not at all cross examined by the prosecuting agency and another witness, i.e., one Sasidoss was not examined. It is obvious to note here PW.12 police photographer says that at 3.15 a.m. he had taken photograph under M.O.4 series in the place of occurence. PW.14 investigating officer also claims that he had been to the place of occurence at 3.15 a.m. But PW.12 does not say that PW.14 was found present at the place of occurence when he was taking photographs. 32. With regard to injuries alleged to have been inflicted to the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar as has been spoken to by PW.1, only two injuries were inflicted on the person of deceased by the appellant. 1) On the left eye brow, 2) On the back side of left knee. But according to PW.7 Dr. Franklin, three injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 1) 15 x 10 c.m. Cut injury over posterior aspect on left knee joint exposing and cutting upper end tibia. 2) 5 x 2 c.m. Lacerated injury over left eye brow 3) Swelling over left Eyelid. 33. Coming to the evidence of PW.3 Dr. But according to PW.7 Dr. Franklin, three injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 1) 15 x 10 c.m. Cut injury over posterior aspect on left knee joint exposing and cutting upper end tibia. 2) 5 x 2 c.m. Lacerated injury over left eye brow 3) Swelling over left Eyelid. 33. Coming to the evidence of PW.3 Dr. Rajesh, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ragu Chandra Kumar it is revealed that he had found as nearly as eight injuries on the person of the deceased. According to him the deceased would appear to have died due to the cut injury to the lower left limb as opined by him in Ex.P3 Post Mortem Certificate. 34. Apart from this, several contutions, as noted in the serial Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, of Ex.P3 Post Mortem Report, were found by PW.3. On a harmonious reading of the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7 along with Ex.P3, we find that there is inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is not in fair congruence with the testimonials of PW.3 and PW.7. Besides this, arrest of appellant and the recovery of crime weapon have not been satisfactorily explained and proved by the prosecuting agency. 35. Mr. B. Gopinath learned senior counsel has argued that the occurrence was not taken place as alleged by the prosecuting agency and that on 13.05.2009 a rioting was taken place in connection with the parliamentary election and in that rioting both the appellant/accused and the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar had sustained injuries. After receiving the injuries, the appellant/accused was admitted in the Praveen Hospital and the deceased Ragu Chandra Kumar was taken to Franklin Hospital. PW.14 has also admitted in his cross examination that he came to know that the appellant was taking treatment at Kolachal Hospital and that he had examined Dr. Praveen who had given treatment to the appellant/accused. But he did not know the date on which Dr. Praveen was examined. PW.14 has stated that when he had been to Praveen Hospital the appellant was not found there and therefore he was not able to be examined by him. Praveen who had given treatment to the appellant/accused. But he did not know the date on which Dr. Praveen was examined. PW.14 has stated that when he had been to Praveen Hospital the appellant was not found there and therefore he was not able to be examined by him. It is to be noted that no case has been registered by PW.14 with regard to the injuries sustained by appellant/accused and the circumstances under which the injuries were inflicted to the appellant was also not explained by PW.14. Even according to PW.14, despite the statement of Dr. Praveen was recorded he was not examined in this case as a witness. 36. On the other hand Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has fairly proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the learned Trial Court Judge had throughly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses along with documentary evidences, and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced there under and since the Judgment of the Trial Court is well considered one, it need not be disturbed. 37. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 38. We have also gone through the judgment of the trial court and analysed the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Having been made an analytical approach, we found that the prosecution witnesses particularly the evidences of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7 are conflicting with each other. The first information report is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and since a lot of infirmities are found in the testimony of PW.14 investigating officer, we find that the charges levelled against the appellant by the prosecution under Section 294(b) 506(2) 302 of IPC have not been satisfactorily established by the proseuction. Under this circumstance, we entertain a reasonable doubt on the inherent probabilities of the prosecution case and therefore it may be expedient to give the benefits of doubt in favour of the appellant. Keeping in view of the above circumstances, we are of considered view that the Criminal Appeal is fully deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and the appellant is acuitted of all the charges levelled against him. Keeping in view of the above circumstances, we are of considered view that the Criminal Appeal is fully deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and the appellant is acuitted of all the charges levelled against him. The fine amount if any paid by him or on his behalf shall be refunded and the bail bond if any executed by/on behalf of the appellant shall stands be discharged.