JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the first accused in S.C. No. 244 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. The second accused is one Mr. Kasinathan. The Trial Court framed as many as five charges in this case. The first charge was against both the accused under Section 120-B I.P.C; the second charge was against the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C.; the third charge was against the second accused under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C.; the fourth charge was against both the accused under Section 201 I.P.C. and the fifth charge was against the second accused under Section 212 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 20.10.2010, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 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. The Trial Court acquitted the first accused from all the other charges and acquitted the second accused from the charges framed against him. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- (i) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Balaji @ Sribalaji. P.W.1 is his wife. P.W.1 is a native of Andra Pradesh State. The deceased and P.W.1 were residing as husband and wife at Mamsapuram in Tirumangalam, Madurai. They have a female child out of the said wedlock. Six months prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 took the child to the Government Hospital at Tirumangalam for the purpose of giving some injection. For the said purpose, she went along with one Mr. Muthupandi in his motor cycle. Mr. Muthupandi is none else than a friend of the deceased. After returning from the hospital, P.W.1 had left for Andra Pradesh. In her absence, the first accused had spread the news that P.W.1 had illicit intimacy with Mr. Muthupandi and that he had seen them travelling in the motor cycle together. On hearing about the same, the deceased reprimanded the accused. After ten days, P.W.1 returned to Tirumangalam. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii) On 06.10.2009, at 12.00 Noon, the deceased had returned from his work to his house. Then, he wanted to go to the Ration Shop for getting new Ration Card. On hearing about the same, the deceased reprimanded the accused. After ten days, P.W.1 returned to Tirumangalam. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii) On 06.10.2009, at 12.00 Noon, the deceased had returned from his work to his house. Then, he wanted to go to the Ration Shop for getting new Ration Card. Accordingly, the deceased went towards the shop and P.W.1 accompanied him. When they were just proceeding, the first accused came from behind a nearby wall. He held an aruval wrapped in a towel. He took up the aruval and attacked the deceased on his left hand. The deceased attempted to escape. Again, the first accused cut him with aruval repeatedly. When P.W.1 intervened, the first accused threatened her of dire consequences. Having received injuries on his back, right ear, head, neck and another places, the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. (iii) According to P.W.1, immediately she went to the Police Station to make a complaint. P.W.16 was the then Sub Inspector of Police at Tirumangalam Town Police Station. P.W.1 made an oral complaint. According to P.W.16, he reduced the same to writing in his own handwriting i.e., Ex.P.1. Based on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.642 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.23 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (iv) P.W.18 took up the case for investigation on 06.10.2009 at 03.45 p.m. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. He arranged a photographer to take photographs of the place of occurrence. Then he examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem. (v) P.W.14, Dr. Kannan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 07.10.2009 at 11.30 a.m. He found the following injuries:- "Description of wounds (injuries) 1. Cut injury from right chin extended upto back of neck (mid) 25 x 4 x 3 cm. This injury involves almost half circle of neck and exposed the underlying muscle and vascular structure which also cut (JVP/Carotid). 2. Cut injury from right chin extended upto back of neck (mid) 25 x 4 x 3 cm. This injury involves almost half circle of neck and exposed the underlying muscle and vascular structure which also cut (JVP/Carotid). 2. Cut injury from left side of neck from left ear to near left chin 10 x 3 x 1 cm. 3. Cut injury of back of neck from upper occipital region to the level of C5 with loss of skin and partial muscles showing lacerated appearance 10 x 3 x 3 cm. 4. Cut injury left back around scapular region. All varying size of- 8 x 3 x 1 cm 4 x 2 x 1 cm 7 x 3 x 3 cm 5 x 1 x 1 cm. All are with sharp margin. 5. Cut injury encircled at promixal ?rd of left forearm exposed the cut fracture. Forearm both bones and muscles also cut. 6. 3 small cut injury in the mid chest (in direction of head to hand) sharp margins 3 x 0.5 x0.5x0.5, 4 x 0.5 x 0.5, 4 x .5 x . 5. 7. 2 small cut injuries in right forearm 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 and 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 8. Small cut wound in left arm 4 x 1 x 1 cm. Internal examination: Cranium Brain normal. No intra cranial haemorrhage. Thorax, Lungs, Normal: ribs-Normal: Heart and great vessels-Normal: Abdomen-Stomach-contains food material: Intestine-Congested: Liver-Normal and congested. Spleen-Normal & Congested: Kidneys-normal & Congested. Other bony structure-except left forearm are normal". Ex.P.17 is the Postmortem Certificate. He reserved his opinion pending Report of Chemical Analysis of internal organs. Then, under Ex.P.18, he gave the following final opinion: "Alcohol intoxication present. Haemorrhage shock with cardio respiratory arrest with multiple cut injury with major vessels cutting right neck. (1) The deceased would appear to have died of about 18-22 hrs prior to the commencement of autopsy. (2) No definite opinion as to the cause of death can be given. However, postmortem appearances, and the clinical symptoms and sign. etc. consisting with the death due to snake, the nature of which is could not be made out". (vi) P.W.18 recovered the material objects from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same also to the Court. On 07.10.2009 at 02.15 p.m., he arrested the first accused at Uchampatti in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness. etc. consisting with the death due to snake, the nature of which is could not be made out". (vi) P.W.18 recovered the material objects from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same also to the Court. On 07.10.2009 at 02.15 p.m., he arrested the first accused at Uchampatti in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.18 and P.W.12 to the place of occurrence and produced M.O.1, aruval and also a sum of Rs.436/-. PW.18 recovered the same. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects for Chemical Examination. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 18 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited, besides 20 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the eye-witness to the occurrence and she has spoken about the same elaborately. P.W.2 to P.W.6 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.7, Dr.Vijayalakshmi was then running a private clinic. On 09.10.2009, according to her, the second accused was brought by the police for treatment for ill-health. The second accused was suffering from vomiting and giddiness. According to her, she gave treatment to him. Ex.P.6 is the Report. P.W.8 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.9 is the Village Administrative Officer of Chengulam Village. According to him, on 06.10.2009, at 03.00 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police of Tirumangalam Town Police Station wanted him to come to the Police Station. Accordingly, he reached the Police Station, where he found P.W.1. In his presence, the complaint (Ex.P.1) was read over by P.W.16 to P.W.1 and then he signed the same. He has stated that he signed the said document as a witness. He has further stated that he witnessed the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence and the preparation of Observation Mahazer. In his presence, the complaint (Ex.P.1) was read over by P.W.16 to P.W.1 and then he signed the same. He has stated that he signed the said document as a witness. He has further stated that he witnessed the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence and the preparation of Observation Mahazer. P.W.10 and P.W.11 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.12 has spoken about the arrest of the first accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1, aruval. P.W.13 has stated that the second accused had married one Latha. After the demise of Latha, he married the niece of P.W.13. The deceased in this case, according to P.W.13, gave the title deeds pertaining to his property to P.W.13. His evidence does not incriminate the accused in any manner. P.W.14 has spoken about the autopsy conducted and his final opinion. P.W.15 is the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, who forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Lab for chemical examination on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.16, the then Sub Inspector of Police, has spoken about the complaint made by P.W.1 and the registration of the case. P.W.17 is the Constable, who carried the First Information Report to the Court. According to him, he handed over the First Information Report at 09.00 p.m. on 06.10.2009. During cross-examination, he has stated that he received it only at 08.30 p.m. P.W.18 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by him. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor to mark any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant alone, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. The prosecution relies only on the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. The prosecution relies only on the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all as the occurrence had not taken place anywhere near her house. Thus according to him, the presence of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence, is highly doubtful. He would further submit that in this case, the First Information Report is a doubtful document and for that purpose he has referred to the evidence of P.W.16. He would further submit that P.W.16 has stated that Ex.P.1 was not written by him and it was written by the training Sub Inspector. But, the said training Sub Inspector has not been examined. He would further submit that there was enormous delay in the First Information Report reaching the Court. He would next contend that there is no evidence from any independent source corroborating the evidence of P.W.1. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 8. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, though P.W.1 happens to be a solitary witness, there is no reason to reject her evidence at all. According to him, she is a natural witness and she has also elaborately and vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. He would further submit that the discrepancies in respect of the First Information Report are immaterial. The medical evidence duly corroborates the eye-witness account of P.W.1. Thus, according to him, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. P.W.1 is admittedly the wife of the deceased and thus she is an interested witness. She is also inimical towards the accused because of the earlier occurrence between the accused and the deceased. The occurrence had not taken place anywhere near her house. It has taken place near the Ration Shop at Mamsapuram. The presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence, was, even according to the case of the prosecution, by sheer chance. She is also inimical towards the accused because of the earlier occurrence between the accused and the deceased. The occurrence had not taken place anywhere near her house. It has taken place near the Ration Shop at Mamsapuram. The presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence, was, even according to the case of the prosecution, by sheer chance. It is too well settled that if a witness claims to have been present at the place of occurrence by chance, the reasons for his being present, should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. In this case, the only explanation offered by P.W.1 is that she followed the deceased to the Ration Shop. In our considered view, the nature of the evidence spoken by P.W.1 would go to show that her presence itself is doubtful. For this conclusion, we will give the reasons a little later. 11. In order to test, whether P.W.1 would have been present at the place of occurrence and whether she would have seen the occurrence, the prompt launching of the complaint is essential. In this case, the alleged occurrence was at 02.00 p.m. on 06.10.2009. The complaint (Ex.P.1) according to P.W.16, was given at 03.00 p.m. on 06.10.2009. If this is true, then there would be no difficulty for the Court to hold that there is delay at all in preferring the complaint. But, there are lot of doubts regarding the complaint. P.W.16 has stated that P.W.1 came to the Police Station and made an oral complaint. According to his evidence, in the chief examination before the Trial Court, he himself reduced the same to writing in his own handwriting. During cross-examination, he has categorically stated that Ex.P.1 is in his own handwriting as the same was reduced to writing only by him. He denied even the suggestion that it was not recorded by him and it was recorded by a training Sub Inspector, by name, Mr. N. Muthupandi. But a perusal of Ex.P.1 revealed that the said complaint was written and signed only by the training Sub Inspector, by name, N. Muthupandi. Unfortunately, Mr. Muthupandi, has not been examined before the Trial Court. The other records available, have given a clue, to some extent, that Ex.P.1 would not have been written by P.W.16. In order to ascertain the genuineness of Ex.P.1, this Court directed the respondent to cause the presence of P.W.16, Mr. Unfortunately, Mr. Muthupandi, has not been examined before the Trial Court. The other records available, have given a clue, to some extent, that Ex.P.1 would not have been written by P.W.16. In order to ascertain the genuineness of Ex.P.1, this Court directed the respondent to cause the presence of P.W.16, Mr. Thalamuthu. Accordingly, Mr. Thalamuthu made appearance before this Court. When, this Court enquired Mr. Thalamuthu, as to whether Ex.P.1 was written in his own handwriting, he stated that it was not written by him and the same was written only by Mr. Muthupandi. In order to ascertain the correctness of the same, this Court, invoking its power under Section 391 Cr.P.C., recalled P.W.16, to elicit certain facts by way of additional evidence. Accordingly, P.W.16 was recalled and this Court in exercise of the power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 put the questions. The first question was whether he could say that Ex.P.1 is in his own handwriting or not? After having seen Ex.P.1, he answered that Ex.P.1 had not been written in his own handwriting and the same was written only by the training Sub Inspector, Mr. Muthupandi. He was further asked as to why the oral complaint made by P.W.1 was not reduced to writing by him. For that, he answered that with a view to give training to the training Sub Inspector, he wanted him to reduce into writing the complaint made by P.W.1 orally. Thus, he confronted with the earlier deposition given by him on 16.09.2010, wherein he had stated that Ex.P.1 was reduced to writing in his handwriting by him and not by the training Sub Inspector Mr. Muthupandi. For that he answered that the deposition made on 16.09.2010, was not correct. He has further stated that Mr. Muthupandi was not cited as a witness before the Trial Court and as instructed by the Inspector of Police, he falsely stated that Ex.P.1 was written by him. 12. In order to ascertain whether his present evidence is true or his earlier evidence is true, we directed him to write few lines in a paper after seeing Ex.P.1 complaint, by repeating what is stated in Ex.P.1. Accordingly, he wrote one paragraph of Ex.P.1 in the said sheet. That has been marked as Ex.C.1. The said handwriting is completely in contradiction to the handwriting found in Ex.P.1. Accordingly, he wrote one paragraph of Ex.P.1 in the said sheet. That has been marked as Ex.C.1. The said handwriting is completely in contradiction to the handwriting found in Ex.P.1. For comparing this, no expert is required, because totally they are different, even for a naked eye. Therefore, this Court is now satisfied on appreciating the above evidence that Ex.P.1 was not written by P.W.16 at all. If that is so, it is not known as to why Mr. Muthupandi, the training Sub Inspector, to whom the complaint was made, has not been explained. Further, Ex.P.1 was attested by P.W.9, Village Administrative Officer. P.W.9 has stated that the training Sub Inspector wanted him to come to the Police Station and then in his presence, the complaint was read over to P.W.1, in which he signed. We do not understand as to why such a strange procedure was followed by the police in getting signature from P.W.9, who is the Village Administrative Officer of a different village, for the said purpose. It is not explained to the Court as to why the complaint was not drafted until P.W.9 came from a different village to the Police Station. This has also not been explained away by the prosecution. At any rate, there is some doubt about Ex.P.1. 13. The First Information Report has reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 09.00 p.m. on 06.10.2009. The distance between the Police Station and the house of the learned Magistrate is hardly a few kilometeres. P.W.17, during cross-examination has admitted that Ex.P.1 and the First Information Report were handed over to him only at 08.30 p.m. on 06.10.2009, that means, there is every possibility to presume that Ex.P.1 would have come into being only around 08.00 p.m. on 06.10.2009 and the same should have been registered only at that point of time and that is why it was handed over to P.W.17 only at 08.30 p.m. Had it been true that the First Information Report was registered at 03.00 p.m. itself, then the fact as to why it was kept in the hands of P.W.17 till 08.30 p.m., should have been explained. The law mandates that as soon as the First Information Report is registered, the same should be despatched to the Court. The law mandates that as soon as the First Information Report is registered, the same should be despatched to the Court. This mandate is only a measure to prevent the police from manipulating the First Information Report and substitute the same with a subsequent complaint. Here in this case, this procedure has not been followed and absolutely there is no explanation regarding the said delay. Thus, we have every doubt about Ex.P.1. 14. If once Ex.P.1 is doubted and because P.W.1 happens to be a solitary witness, whose evidence does not draw any corroboration from any independent witness, it is difficult for this Court to sustain the conviction. It is not the law that the evidence of a solitary witness cannot be the foundation for conviction. The evidence of a solitary witness can be the foundation for conviction, provided, it inspires the confidence of the Court, in which case, the Court need not necessarily look for any corroboration from any independent source. Here, in this case, the evidence of P.W.1 is not free from doubt and that there is also no corroboration from any independent source. For these reasons, we find no option except to acquit the first accused giving benefit of doubt, thereby holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the first accused. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, made in S.C. No. 244 of 2010, dated 20.10.2010, is set aside and the appellant/first accused is acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant/first accused and the sureties shall stand terminated. Document marked in this Criminal Appeal as Court's Document: C.1-30.09.2015-Excerpts of Ex.P.1 (complaint) written by P.W.16.