Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.111 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, at Tiruchirappalli. A1 to A3 stood charged for offences under Sections 341 r/w 34 IPC and 302 read with 34 IPC, in addition, the third accused was charged for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC also. By judgment, dated 19.01.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused under all charges. For the offence under Section 341 r/w 34 IPC, the trial Court sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. For the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the trial Court sentenced all the three accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and for the offence under 3rd Section 506(ii) IPC, the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr. Ilayaraja. He was a resident of Kamaraj Nagar in Trichy. The accused also belonged to the same area. 15 days prior to 18.06.2.011, the 1st accused received a compact disc having pornographic contents. But the 1st accused did not return the said CD to the deceased. The deceased wanted the 1st accused to return the same. This resulted in a quarrel. In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the deceased had attacked the 1st accused. The 1st accused sustained minor injuries and got treatment from a hospital. But, he did not give any complaint regarding the same. This is stated to be the motive for the same. 2.1. On 18.06.2011, at 11.00 p.m., P.W.1 (the mother of the deceased), sister-in-law of the deceased and the deceased were returning from the Bazaar, after taking tea. At that time, when they were nearing Anthoniyar Koil Arch in the village, suddenly, all the accused came there. They developed quarrel with the deceased on account of the earlier occurrence. 2.1. On 18.06.2011, at 11.00 p.m., P.W.1 (the mother of the deceased), sister-in-law of the deceased and the deceased were returning from the Bazaar, after taking tea. At that time, when they were nearing Anthoniyar Koil Arch in the village, suddenly, all the accused came there. They developed quarrel with the deceased on account of the earlier occurrence. In culmination of the said quarrel, it is alleged that the 1st accused took a stick, which was lying there and attacked the deceased on his head. The 2nd accused took a stick and attacked him on his chest. The 3rd accused threatened the witnesses of dire consequences. P.Ws.1 and 2 raised alarm. Then, all the 3 accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. 2.2. P.Ws.1 and 2, thereafter, took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Trichy and admitted him as inpatient. To the Doctor, P.Ws.1 and 2 told that a tree had fallen on the deceased and that is why, he had sustained injuries on his body. They did not go to the police to make any complaint. The treatment went on in the hospital, where the deceased was admitted as inpatient. It is alleged that on the next day, by about 1.45 p.m., the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, it is alleged that P.W.1 went to the police station and made a complaint to P.W.10. 2.3. P.W.10 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kottai Police Station registered a case on the complaint of P.W.1 in Crime No.842 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P9 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 2.4. P.W.11 took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and one Rameshkumar. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. 2.5. P.W.5 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.06.2011 at 10.10 a.m. She found the following injuries: 1. Dark brown colour abrasion, 3 cm x 1 cm on the back of right shoulder. 2. Contusion on the right temporal and right side of occipital regions of the scalp – dark red. 3. 2.5. P.W.5 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.06.2011 at 10.10 a.m. She found the following injuries: 1. Dark brown colour abrasion, 3 cm x 1 cm on the back of right shoulder. 2. Contusion on the right temporal and right side of occipital regions of the scalp – dark red. 3. Bruising of both temporal, right side of occipital region of the scalp and both temporalis muscle – dark red. 4. Fissured fracture of both temporal bones present. 5. Subdural haemotoma on the temporal lobe of right cerebral hemisphere. 6. Subdural haemotoma and sub arachnoid hemorrhage on both cerebral hemispheres. 7. Fracture base of skull – both middle cranial fossa present. 8. Intravenous injection wound on the back of left hand – surgical treatment. The above mentioned wounds are antemortem. No other external, internal or bony wound. Ex.P3 is the postmortem certificate and Ex.P4 is the serology report. She gave opinion that the death was due to the head injury. 2.6. During the course of investigation, on 19.06.2011, at 6.30 p.m., P.W.11 arrested all the three accused. On such arrest, in the presence of P.W.7, the 1st accused made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden wooden logs. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the said place and produced 2 wooden logs (M.Os.1 and 2). On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the material objects also. He made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the 1st paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined, 13 documents and 2 material objects were marked. 2.8. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have spoken vividly about the same. P.W.5 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch. 2.8. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have spoken vividly about the same. P.W.5 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch. P.W.7 has spoken about the arrest of the 3 accused and the confession made by the 1st accused. He has further stated that out of the same, M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from the hide out. P.W.8 is an official from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who has stated that at the relevant point of time, there was no electricity failure and there was enough light at the place of occurrence. P.W.9 has stated that he handed over the FIR to the learned Magistrate at 7.30 p.m. on 19.06.2011. P.W.10 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.11 about the investigation done. 3. 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 their side nor to mark any documents. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the three accused as detailed above and that is how, they are before this Court with this appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and we have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws. 1 to 4, who claimed to be the eye witnesses, cannot not be believed at all. The occurrence was not taken place anywhere near their house. Thus, according to him, these witnesses were chance witnesses. Apart from that P.W.1 has admitted even in the chief examination that when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she and P.W.2 told the Doctor that the deceased had sustained injuries by fall of a tree on him. He would point out that the medical records pertaining to the deceased were not seized and proved in evidence. He has further stated that what was the condition of the deceased, while in the hospital and whether he made any statement or not, has not been explained away. He would point out that the medical records pertaining to the deceased were not seized and proved in evidence. He has further stated that what was the condition of the deceased, while in the hospital and whether he made any statement or not, has not been explained away. He would further submit that only after the demise of the deceased, the present FIR came to be registered, as though, the deceased was attacked by all the three accused. He would further submit that P.W.3 has categorically stated that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the police station and made a written complaint, but that complaint has been suppressed. He would also submit that the 1st accused was arrested and kept in the police station at 10.00 a.m. itself on 19.06.2011, whereas, the deceased died at 1.45 p.m. on 19.06.2011 and the FIR came to be registered on 3.30 p.m. on the date. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the arrest of the 1st accused and the consequential discovery of M.Os.1 and 2 also cannot be believed. He would further submit that the original complaint in this case has been suppressed. For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose these appeals. According to him, since the accused had threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 of dire consequences, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not inform the Doctor about the occurrence and instead they made a statement to the Doctor that the deceased had sustained injuries due to a fall of a tree on him. Thus, there is sufficient explanation as to why at the earliest point of time, P.Ws.1 and 2 had informed the Doctor that the deceased had sustained by fall of a tree on his head. He would further submit that after the demise of the deceased, it is the duty of P.W.1 to go and inform the police and that is why, the FIR came to be registered. He would further submit that though P.W.1 had made certain assertions in favour of the accused, they cannot be given any weightage of. He would further submit that the medical evidence duly corroborates the eye witness account. He would further submit that though P.W.1 had made certain assertions in favour of the accused, they cannot be given any weightage of. He would further submit that the medical evidence duly corroborates the eye witness account. He would further submit that the non production of the medical records and non examination of the Doctors, who gave treatment to the deceased, would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. For these reasons, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the case of the prosecution deserves to be accepted and appeals deserve to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the above submissions. 8. Admittedly, at the time when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, P.Ws.1 and 2 had told at the earliest opportunity that the deceased had sustained injuries by fall of a tree on his head. It is too difficult to believe that they would have made such a false statement out of fear for the accused. Assuming that the said statement made by P.Ws.1 and 2 has been explained away, absolutely, there is no explanation as to why the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not inform the police about the same. But it is in the evidence of P.W.3 that he went to the police immediately after the occurrence and made a written complaint. But that complaint has been suppressed by the prosecution, for which, absolutely, there is no explanation. It is in the further evidence of P.W.3 that on 19.06.2011, at 10.00 am itself, the 1st accused was arrested and he was kept in the police station. It needs to be noted that the deceased had not died at 10.00 a.m., as he died only at 1.45 p.m. on 19.06.2011. Thus, the 1st accused was taken into custody, even while the deceased was alive and even before the case was registered. Certainly, the arrest of the 1st accused at 10.00 a.m., would have been based on some other information to the police. Probably that was the information given by P.W.3 to the police, as he has admitted during cross examination. Thus, the earliest information has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is not explained to the Court as to what was the information, as to which, A1 was arrested on 10.00 a.m. on 19.06.2011 itself. Thus, there is enormous doubt in respect of the very origin of the occurrence. Thus, the earliest information has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is not explained to the Court as to what was the information, as to which, A1 was arrested on 10.00 a.m. on 19.06.2011 itself. Thus, there is enormous doubt in respect of the very origin of the occurrence. 9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the non production of the medical records pertaining to the deceased also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is not as though the deceased was treated as outpatient. He was treated as inpatient from 11 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. on the next day. What was the condition of the deceased during the said period is not known. Whether he made any statement to the Doctor, while he was conscious, is also not known. Why these medical records have been suppressed has not been explained away. This also creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. 10. There are three accused in the case. The 1st accused alone was taken into custody at 10.00 a.m. on 19.06.2011. It is not known as to why the other accused were not even searched for. All these facts would create very reasonable doubts in the case of the prosecution. In this regard, the earliest statement made by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased had sustained injuries by fall of a tree on his head also should carry weightage. From these improbabilities, inconsistencies and doubts, which we have pointed out, we are of the view that it is not safe to act upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and to sustain the conviction of the accused. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 11. In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds, shall stand terminated.