JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.251 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 23.12.2010, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, 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.Alagumalai. P.W.1 is his father. P.W.2 Mrs.Ponnammal is his sister and P.W.3 Murugan is the husband of P.W.2. The deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were all residing at Kurangupatti Village. The accused also belongs to the same village. The wife of the accused is one Mrs.Nagajothi. It is alleged that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the said Nagajothi. The accused reprimanded the deceased for the same. Six months prior to the occurrence, on account of the same, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. It is stated to be the motive for the present occurrence. 2.2 While so, on 12.11.2009, at about 2.00 p.m, P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the deceased had gone to an agricultural field for work. Thereafter, they were returning towards a shortcut route to their house. When they were coming together, the accused emerged and questioned the deceased as to why he was coming in the said route. By saying this, the accused dragged the deceased to his house. It is alleged that in front of his house, the accused stabbed the deceased on his chest and on his left thigh. Then, it is alleged that the accused had run away from the place of occurrence. 2.3 It is the further case that the deceased was immediately taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, at 4.30p.m on 12.11.2009. Intimation regarding admission was given to the Police. The deceased was admitted as an in-patient. He died at 06.15 p.m on 12.11.2009. The death intimation was also given to the Police Station by the hospital authorities. But, the police did not go over to the hospital to record any statement. Intimation regarding admission was given to the Police. The deceased was admitted as an in-patient. He died at 06.15 p.m on 12.11.2009. The death intimation was also given to the Police Station by the hospital authorities. But, the police did not go over to the hospital to record any statement. 2.4 It is alleged that P.W.1 had gone to the Police Station and made a complaint at 11.00 p.m on 12.11.2009 at Vadipatti Police Station. P.W.7 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the said complaint, has registered a case in Crime No.709 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.9 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to the court. The records reveal that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9 reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 01.30 a.m on 13.11.2009. Then, he forwarded the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 2.5 P.W.,9 the then Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, took up the case for investigation. At 12' noon midnight, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and other witnesses. Then, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and the same witnesses. On 13.11.2009 at 8.00 a.m, he forwarded the body for post-mortem. P.W.8 Dr.Natarajan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 13.11.2009 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: i) An oblique stab injury 5 cms X 1 cm X peritoneal cavity deep noted on the front of upper part of middle of abdomen. On dissection the wound passes obliquely downwards and backwards piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and piercing the anterior wall of stomach measuring 4 cms X 1 cm X entering into stomach. ii) An oblique stab injury 5 cms X 1 cm X 4 cms along the muscle plane on the back of upper part of right thigh. iii) All the stab injuries are having regular margins, on endis pointed an other end is curved. Ex.P.11 is the post-mortem certificate. He gave a final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage and its corresponding internal injuries. 2.6 During the course of investigation, P.W.9 arrested the accused at 2.00 p.m on 13.11.2009 in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness near Palaniandavar Kovil Arch. Ex.P.11 is the post-mortem certificate. He gave a final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage and its corresponding internal injuries. 2.6 During the course of investigation, P.W.9 arrested the accused at 2.00 p.m on 13.11.2009 in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness near Palaniandavar Kovil Arch. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife. In pursuance of the same, P.W.9 went to the said place along with the accused and the knife was recovered under a mahazar. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court and a request was made by P.W.9 to send the same for chemical examination. According to the report, there was human blood on all the material objects including the knife. The result of grouping test was inconclusive so far as the knife is concerned. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.7 Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined, 15 documents and 6 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.s. 1 to 3 are eye witnesses. They have spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar and recovery of blood stained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and confession made by him and subsequent disclosure of M.O.1 knife. P.W.6, the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court has spoken about the procedure of sending of material objects for chemical examination and P.W.7 has spoken about the registration of case. P.W.8, Dr. Natarajan has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the death of the deceased. P.W.9 the Inspector of Police 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. However, he did not choose to examine any witnesses nor marked any documents on his side. P.W.9 the Inspector of Police 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. However, he did not choose to examine any witnesses nor marked any documents on his side. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant and accordingly, punished him under Section 302 IPC. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have seen the occurrence at all. He would submit that there was an enormous delay in preferring the complaint, which is not explained by the prosecution at all. This creates doubts in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the prosecution has suppressed the Accident Register and other medical records pertaining to the treatment given to the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Doctor, who treated the deceased and the Doctor, who declared his death, have not been examined. He would further submit that the prosecution has not given any reason as to why the police did not go over to the hospital to record the statement of witness to register the case soon after the intimation was received. He would further submit that the deceased was not admitted in the hospital by P.W.s 1 to 3, but, the wife of the accused. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel, would go to show that P.Ws. 1 to 3 would not have been present at the time of occurrence. 6. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. He would submit that there are no reasons to reject the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3. Though there is a delay in preferring the complaint, the same has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution. Similarly, he would further submit that non-examination of the Doctor and non-marking of the Accident Register pertaining to the deceased have not caused any flaw in the case of the prosecution. Though there is a delay in preferring the complaint, the same has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution. Similarly, he would further submit that non-examination of the Doctor and non-marking of the Accident Register pertaining to the deceased have not caused any flaw in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the medical evidence corroborates the eye witness account in respect of the injuries found on the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. We have considered the above submissions. 8. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 2.00 p.m. It is their case that P.W.s 1 to 3 were present at the time of occurrence and they took the deceased to the hospital. The occurrence had taken place at the house of the accused. It is stated that the accused dragged the deceased to his house and he stabbed him there. If it is true, the Accident Register would contain any one of the names of P.Ws. 1 to 3. The Accident Register has not been marked as one of the documents. 9. We have gone through the case diary, which contains the Accident Register. A reading of the same would go to show that the deceased was brought to the hospital only by Mrs. Nagajothi, the wife of the accused. The Doctor has described her as a relative of the deceased. At that time, P.Ws.1 to 3 were not there. Had it been true that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were present at the house of the accused, witnessed the occurrence, as it has been stated by them and if they had taken the deceased to the hospital, in the Accident Register, any one of the names of these 3 witnesses would have been mentioned by the Doctor. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have not at all stated that the said Nagajothi, the wife of the accused, was present anywhere in the place of occurrence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said Nagajothi only took the deceased to the hospital. It is the positive case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 1 to 3 had taken the deceased to the hospital. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said Nagajothi only took the deceased to the hospital. It is the positive case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 1 to 3 had taken the deceased to the hospital. When that being so, as to how Nagajothi came in the picture, as to how she took the deceased to the hospital and as to how she admitted him in the hospital, absolutely, there is no explanation for all these doubts. 10. Then, coming to the First Information Report, it is the admitted case that after admission, an intimation was sent by the hospital authorities to the police station at 4.30 p.m itself, but, no police officer had gone to the hospital to record the statement of the injured. The deceased died at 6.15 p.m. Death Intimation was sent by one Dr.Sharmili to the Police Station forthwith. The death intimation dated 12.11.2009 was found in the case diary. After 6.15 p.m, it is not known that P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not prefer to go to Police Station to make a complaint. According to the police, even after receiving the said death intimation, the police did not go to the hospital to record the statement of any one of the witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that only at 11.00 p.m, P.W.1 came to the police station and preferred Ex.P.1 complaint. The reason, as to why upto 11.00 p.m no complaint was made, has not been explained. 11. But, contrary to the same, P.W.1, during cross examination, has stated that at around 8.00 p.m itself he went to the police station and made a complaint and the complaint was drafted by one Alaguraja and that was handed over to the police station at 8.30 p.m itself. Even according to his further evidence itself, they returned to the hospital. Again they went to the police station at 11'o clock and another complaint was drafted by Alaguraja, in which, P.W.1 signed and the same was marked as Ex.P.1. If that is so, why the original complaint given at 8.00 p.m has been suppressed? Absolutely, there is no explanation for the same. This contradiction, in our considered view, is material. 12. From the facts that the occurrence had taken place at the house of the accused and the deceased was not taken to the hospital by P.Ws. If that is so, why the original complaint given at 8.00 p.m has been suppressed? Absolutely, there is no explanation for the same. This contradiction, in our considered view, is material. 12. From the facts that the occurrence had taken place at the house of the accused and the deceased was not taken to the hospital by P.Ws. 1 to 3, instead, the wife of the accused had taken him to the hospital and the complaint given at 8.00 p.m has been suppressed, we are of the view that the prosecution has not come with clean hands. 13. We have every doubt that P.Ws. 1 to 3 would not have been present at the time of occurrence at all at the house of the accused, where the occurrence had taken place. For these reasons, we find it difficult to believe the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 though they have claimed themselves as eye witnesses. 14. In such view of the matter, we have to give the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 15.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC, by judgment dated 23.12.2010 in S.C.No.251 of 2010, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by him and the sureties shall stand terminated.