Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.34 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam, Theni District. He stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. But the trial Court convicted him under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 449 IPC, and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 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 Mr. Suruli @ Surulirajan. It is alleged that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused. The accused, therefore, developed grudge against the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 2.1. It is alleged that on 11.06.2009, the deceased was at his house. P.W.1 – the father of the deceased was also in the house. At about 12.30 p.m., the accused suddenly trespassed into the house of the deceased, armed with a knife. On finding that the deceased was inside the house, he mounted repeated attacks on the deceased with knife. He also criminally intimidated the father of the deceased (P.W.1) from intervening. P.W.1 raised alarm. P.W.2, who was passing through the house of the deceased along with P.W.3, on hearing the alarm raised, rushed to the house of the deceased. He also found the accused stabbing the deceased repeatedly. Having received the injuries, the deceased ran out of the house below on the street. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.5 – the neighbour saw the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 then sent a message to the wife of the deceased (P.W.7), who was engaged in work elsewhere in the field. On receiving the intimation, she rushed to the house and found the deceased with injuries. Then, all of them took the deceased to the hospital. 2.2. P.W.15 – Dr. P.W.1 then sent a message to the wife of the deceased (P.W.7), who was engaged in work elsewhere in the field. On receiving the intimation, she rushed to the house and found the deceased with injuries. Then, all of them took the deceased to the hospital. 2.2. P.W.15 – Dr. Dinesh an Assistant Surgeon at Theni Medical College Hospital, examined the deceased at 1.30 p.m. At that time, the deceased was conscious. The deceased told him that he was stabbed with knife at 12.30 p.m. at his house by an unknown person. He found the following injuries on him. 1. Stab (cut injury) of 5 x 3 x 3 cms with fracture rib right lower chest. 2. Cut injury 5 x 3 x 3 cm with fracture rib left lower chest. 3. Laceration 10 x 5 x 5 cms right lower posterior chest. Penetration into pleural cavity. 4. Laceration 8 x 5 x 5 cm left lower posterior chest. 5. Cut injury 5 x 3 x 3 cm right lumbar region near 12th rib. 6. Laceration 7 x 5 x 2 cm left cheek. Ex.P11 is the Accident Register. He admitted him as inpatient in the hospital and gave intimation to the police forthwith. 2.3. P.W.16 – Dr. Muthuraj treated the deceased in the hospital, while he was inpatient. He conducted surgery on the deceased. However, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 5.05 p.m. P.W.16 declared him dead and then sent intimation to the police. 2.4. P.W.18 – the Sub Inspector of Police at Andipatti Police Station received the death intimation from the hospital at 5.15 p.m. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital and recorded a statement from P.W.1 at 5.30 p.m. Ex.P1 is the complaint. On returning to the police station, at 6.30 p.m., he registered a case in Crime No.352 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P14 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded both the documents to Court through P.W.13. The learned Judicial Magistrate received the same at 11.30 p.m. P.W.18 handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 2.5. P.W.19 took up the case for investigation at 7.00 p.m. on 11.06.2009, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. The learned Judicial Magistrate received the same at 11.30 p.m. P.W.18 handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 2.5. P.W.19 took up the case for investigation at 7.00 p.m. on 11.06.2009, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. Then, he recovered bloodstained mat, bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 12.06.2009 between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. Then he forwarded the body through P.W.17 for postmortem. 2.6. P.W.11 – Dr. Arunkumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He found the following injuries. 1. A transverse deep cut injury seen on the front of lower part of left cheek measuring 9 cms x 1 cm x bone deep. 2. A surgically sutured wound (intercostal drainage) measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x pleural cavity deep noted on the right lower axilla region. The wound is situated 5 cms below the axilla. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 3. A sutured oblique stab wound measuring 5 cms x 1 cm x pleural cavity deep noted on the side of right lower chest. The wound is situated 16 cms below the axilla. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. Fracture of the underlying bone noted. 4. A sutured oblique stab wound measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x 1cm deep noted on the center of right lower chest. The wound is situated 3 cms below the nipple. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 5. A sutured oblique stab wound measuring 7 cms x 1 cm x pleural cavity noted on the front of inner aspect of left side of chest, 7 cms below the nipple. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 6.A surgically sutured wound (intercostal drainage) measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x pleural cavity deep noted on the front of outer aspect of left side of chest, 10 cms below the nipple. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 7. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 6.A surgically sutured wound (intercostal drainage) measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x pleural cavity deep noted on the front of outer aspect of left side of chest, 10 cms below the nipple. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 7. A sutured transverse cut wound measuring 4 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep noted on centre on back of right forearm, 7 cms below right elbow joint. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 8. A surgically sutured transverse cut wound measuring 5 cms x 0.5 cm noted on inner aspect of left ankle joint, 3 cms above the medial malleous – vanous cut down. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 9. A sutured oblique stab wound measuring 10 cms x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity deep noted on right loin region, 4 cms away from the midline of back. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 10. A sutured oblique stab wound measuring 6 cms x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity deep noted on right loin region, 4 cms away from the midline of back, 2 cms below injury No.9. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. 11. A sutured oblique stab wound measuring 8 cms x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity deep on left loin region, 6 cms away from the midline of back. On removal of sutures: The edges are clean cut, margins are clean. Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate. He preserved the viscera for chemical examination, which revealed that there was no poison detected. Finally, he gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds. 2.7. During the course of investigation, on 13.06.2009, at 8.30 a.m., P.W.19 arrested the accused near the Petrol Bulk on the Antipatti – Madurai Road in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.19 and the witnesses to the said place, produced a knife (M.O.1). Then, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects for chemical examination. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.19 and the witnesses to the said place, produced a knife (M.O.1). Then, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects for chemical examination. According to the analyst report, human blood was found on all the material objects including M.O.1 – knife. But the grouping of the blood on the knife was inconclusive. P.W.20 continued the investigation from 17.07.2009 and laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. 2.8. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 449, 302 and 506(ii) IPC against the accused. He denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and 7 material objects were marked. 2.9. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 claimed to be the eye witnesses. P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.5 – a neighbour has stated that he saw the accused at or about the time of occurrence fleeing from the place of occurrence. P.W.6 is the mother of the deceased, who has spoken only on the hear say information. P.W.7 is the wife of the deceased had stated that while she was at work, she received message from P.W.1 that her husband was stabbed. Therefore, she rushed to the place of occurrence and took the deceased to the hospital. P.Ws.8 and 9 have spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 – knife. P.W.10 has spoken about the FIR prepared by P.W.18 and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.12 is the Head Clerk of the Court, who forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Lab for chemical examination. P.W.13 is the Constable, who carried the FIR from the Court and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate at 11.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence. P.W.14 is the Scientific Assistant, who has stated that on chemical examining the material objects, he found human blood on the knife and other material objects. P.W.15 – Dr. P.W.13 is the Constable, who carried the FIR from the Court and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate at 11.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence. P.W.14 is the Scientific Assistant, who has stated that on chemical examining the material objects, he found human blood on the knife and other material objects. P.W.15 – Dr. Dinesh has spoken about the admission of the deceased at the hospital made by him and the statement made by the deceased to him. P.W.16 – Dr. Muthuraj, who treated the deceased and declared the deceased dead. P.W.17 has spoken about the carrying of the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. P.W.18 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.Ws.19 and 20 has spoken about the investigation done. 3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. On his side, three witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 3. D.W.1 is the resident of Silukkuvarpatti Village. According to him, there was a longstanding dispute between P.W.1 and one Subbian and thus, Subbian was an enemy to the family of the deceased. D.W.2 is one Mr.Nagarajan, who is also a resident of Silukkuvarpatti. According to him, on the crucial date of occurrence, he found the deceased lying under a light post at Thirumalkottaipatti with injuries. According to him, he gave a phone call for ambulance. After arrival of the ambulance, P.W.7 the wife of the deceased had also come to the spot. Thus, according to him, the deceased was taken to the hospital. D.W.3 is the resident of Kondamanayakkanpatti. According to him, there was enmity between one Mr. Subbian and the family of the deceased. According to him, the accused and his wife were taken to the custody of the police on 11.06.2009 and after some time, his wife was let off, but the accused was sent for judicial remand. 3.1. On his side, he has marked Ex.D.1, which is the intimation sent by the Casualty Medical Officer of Theni Medical College Hospital to the Sub Inspector of Police, K.Vilakku Police Station. This has been marked to prove that intimation was sent to the police at 12.30 p.m. on 11.06.2009 itself. In crux, the defence of the accused was a total denial. This has been marked to prove that intimation was sent to the police at 12.30 p.m. on 11.06.2009 itself. In crux, the defence of the accused was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that at the earliest point of time, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, he told P.W.15 that he was stabbed by an unknown person with knife at his residence. This statement, according to the learned senior counsel, being a dying declaration should be given weightage of. He would further submit that P.W.1 could not have been present at the time of occurrence at all. He would further submit that P.Ws.2 and 3 being chance witnesses also would not have been there at the time of occurrence and therefore, their presence also cannot be believed. So far as P.W.5 is concerned, this evidence also deserves rejection, in view of the earliest statement made by the deceased to the Doctor. So far as the recovery of knife – M.O.1, the learned senior counsel would submit that it is immaterial. The learned senior counsel would further submit that there is enormous delay in registering the case and also despatching the same to the Court, which is not explained by the prosecution, which also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this appeal. According to him, the presence of P.W.1 at the house of the deceased was quite natural and therefore, the same cannot be disbelieved. He would further submit that P.Ws.2 and 3 have also witnessed the occurrence and there are no reasons to reject their evidences. He would further submit that simply because P.Ws.2 and 3 are chance witnesses, their evidences cannot be rejected, because their evidences duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. He would further submit that P.Ws.2 and 3 have also witnessed the occurrence and there are no reasons to reject their evidences. He would further submit that simply because P.Ws.2 and 3 are chance witnesses, their evidences cannot be rejected, because their evidences duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. He would further submit that at the time, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was not conscious and therefore, the statement recorded in the Accident Register that the deceased was stabbed by unknown person was only made by his wife – P.W.7. Since P.W.7 had not seen the occurrence, quite naturally, it would not have been possible for her to say the stab injury on the deceased. Thus, the statement now recorded in the accident register does not in any manner disturb the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted. He would further submit that the medical evidence duly corroborate the eye witness account of P.W.1. He would lastly submit that the recovery of M.O.1 further strengthens the case of the prosecution. 7. We have considered the above submissions. 8. According to the case of the prosecution, the alleged occurrence was at 12.30 p.m. on 11.06.2009. It is alleged that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 had witnessed the occurrence and P.W.5 saw the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.7 – wife of the deceased was not at the house at that time, as she was in her field. It was only P.W.1, who sent intimation to her about the occurrence. Then P.W.7 returned to her house. Then, all of them made arrangement for ambulance to shift the deceased to the hospital. They went together to the hospital. P.W.7 in her chief examination itself stated that she was told by P.W.1 that the accused stabbed the deceased. Therefore, at the time when they had reached the hospital, even P.W.7 was aware of the fact that it was the accused, who caused the injuries on the deceased. 9. Now, at 1.30 p.m., the deceased was examined by P.W.15 – Dr. Dinesh. Ex.P11 is the Accident Register. In the said Accident Register, P.W.15 has recorded that it was alleged that the deceased was stabbed by a knife by an unknown person. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this statement would not have been made by the deceased at all. Dinesh. Ex.P11 is the Accident Register. In the said Accident Register, P.W.15 has recorded that it was alleged that the deceased was stabbed by a knife by an unknown person. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this statement would not have been made by the deceased at all. But during the cross examination, P.W.15 has categorically stated that the deceased was conscious. In Ex.P11, he recorded that the deceased was conscious. During the further cross examination, he has stated that it was only the deceased, who told him that he was stabbed by an unknown person at his house with knife. Thus, the statement recorded in Ex.P11 was made only by the deceased. This statement is a dying declaration falling within the ambit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. This dying declaration being the earliest dying declaration should carry weightage. It is not as if the accused was not a known person to the deceased. When that be so, had it been true that this accused had stabbed the deceased, the deceased would have told P.W.15 that he was attacked by a known person. But the very fact that he had told the Doctor that he was stabbed by an unknown person would go to show that there is no truth in the case of the prosecution and the prosecution case has been developed subsequently. 10. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this statement would have been made only by P.W.7 and not by the deceased. Assuming that the statement has been made by P.W.7, it is not as if she was not aware of the fact that the deceased was stabbed by the accused. Even in the chief examination, she had told that when she reached the house, P.W.1 told her that the accused had stabbed the deceased. Thus, she had full knowledge that it was only the accused, who caused the stab injury on the deceased. Had it been true, when she made the statement to P.W.15, she would have told that her husband was stabbed by a known person, which has been duly contradicted by the statement also. But she had no explanation for that. Thus, either way whether it was made by the deceased or it was made by P.W.7, it destroys the case of the prosecution. 11. Added to that the delay in the FIR creates enormous doubt. But she had no explanation for that. Thus, either way whether it was made by the deceased or it was made by P.W.7, it destroys the case of the prosecution. 11. Added to that the delay in the FIR creates enormous doubt. The deceased was admitted in the hospital at 1.30 p.m. Intimation was sent immediately under Ex.D.1 to the police station. But no police officer came to the hospital to record the earliest information regarding the occurrence. The deceased died at 5.05 p.m. After receipt of the death intimation only, P.W.18 rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. In the interregnum period, lot of deliberations would have been gone to make development in the case. Whether Ex.P1 would have been preferred at 5.30 itself is doubtful, because the FIR reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 11.30 p.m. Absolutely there is no explanation for the same. After all the hospital, the police station and the residence of the Magistrate are situated within few kilometres. After all Theni itself, is a very small town. Therefore, for a man to carry the FIR from the police station to the house of the Magistrate, it would not have been taken 5 hours. That delay also has not been explained away. This creates doubt in the very genesis of the FIR. 12. Then, comes the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 has been disbelieved by the trial Court having regard to the conduct of P.W.1. There was no bloodstain on his dress materials to substantiate his claim that he was present at the time of occurrence. It is not known whether he accompanied the deceased to the hospital or not. Going by this conduct and other inconsistencies in the evidence, the trial Court has disbelieved him. We also fall in line with the same. If P.W.1 is so disbelieved, quite naturally, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 are also disbelieved, because, according to them, they were attracted by the hue and cry raised by P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 are also doubtful. Their evidences are completely destroyed by the earliest information, i.e. the dying declaration made by the deceased to the Doctor. 13. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 are also doubtful. Their evidences are completely destroyed by the earliest information, i.e. the dying declaration made by the deceased to the Doctor. 13. So far as the motive is concerned, though it is alleged that the accused developed grudge against the accused, because the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with his wife, there is no evidence let in to prove the same. Assuming that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased, as contended by the learned senior counsel, the motive is a double edged weapon and it can also be said that because of the said motive, the appellant has been falsely implicated. At any rate, in our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond shall stand terminated.