JUDGMENT : 1. The sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Mahila Court, Tuticorin made in S.C. No. 198 of 2016, dated 26.09.2017, has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 2. The appellant/sole accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:- S. No. Offense for which convicted Imprisonment Fine 1 302 of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment Rs. 1000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months Case of the Prosecution in brief: 3. The brief case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and they were married six years before the date of occurrence. The appellant is said to be addicted to alcohol and he used to repeatedly demand money from the deceased, as a result of which, there were frequent quarrels between the parties. The deceased had come to her parent's house and she was living there along with her two children. On 18.06.2015, the appellant is said to have met the deceased at her parent's house and demanded for money to consume liquor and she had refused to pay any money. Therefore, the appellant is said to have stated that she would be done away with and left the place. On 19.06.2015, at about 5:00 a.m. the deceased is said to have gone along with PW-2 and PW-3 to work in a Salt Plant and between 5:45 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. the appellant had come to the place of occurrence and is said to have assaulted the deceased with an iron rod (M.O. 1) on her head and in the hands, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. Complaint and materials collected during the course of the investigation: 4. The father of the deceased (PW-1) went to the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-9) and had given a complaint (Ex.P.1) at about 9:00 a.m. on 19.06.2015. On receipt of the complaint, an F.I.R. (Ex.P.6) was registered in Crime No. 89 of 2015 for the offense under Section 302 of I.P.C. The express F.I.R. was handed over to the Head Constable (PW-8) and she had submitted it to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kovilpatti at about 5:15 p.m. on the same day. 4.1. The investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police (PW-13) and he came to the scene of occurrence at about 10:30 a.m. on 19.06.2015. 4.1. The investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police (PW-13) and he came to the scene of occurrence at about 10:30 a.m. on 19.06.2015. He prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.14) in the presence of the witness (PW-6). He also collected the material objects from the scene of occurrence. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, went to the Government Hospital, Vilathikulam and conducted the inquest on the dead body in the presence of the panchayatars and he prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.15). He handed over the body to the Head Constable (PW-11) with a requisition to conduct the postmortem and thereafter, hand over the body to the relatives of the deceased. 4.2. The postmortem was conducted by PW-10 and the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.8) reveals the following injuries:- "External Injuries: Laceration in right forearm medial side 2 x 1 x 1 cms in size. Laceration in left hand dorsal aspect near of left index finger 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms in size. Laceration in left ear in middle side 7 x 3 x 2 cms in size, dividing left ear into two parts. A laceration wound noted behind left ear measuring 10 x 5 x 2 cms in size skull visible. A laceration, wound left occipital region measuring 5 x 3 x 2 cms in size. Internal injuries: Neck - Hyoid Bone - Normal, Chest - Ribs - normal Lungs - normal size and colour. No hemorrhage. Heart - Normal in size and colour, No hemorrhage. Abdomen - Stomach distended, partially digested food particular 200 ml noted, other inter Abdominal organs appear normal (NC) intestine distended with gas. External genitalia - normal. Skull - Hematoma noted below the scalp in the left temporal region measuring 10 x 6 x 1 cms in size. Middle cranial fossa fracture noted, contusion noted in left temporal region of brain subdural hematoma around 700 ml evaluated, left mandible fracture noted. Opinion as to cause of death: (1) Reserved pending report of.......... (b) The deceased would appear to have died of Traumatic injury and other injuries mentioned above, deceased appear to have died 6-8 hrs before postmortem." 4.3. The Investigation Officer arrested the appellant on 19.06.2015 at about 4:00 p.m. and based on his voluntary confession statement, recovered M.O. 1 in the presence of Village Administrative Officer (PW-7). (b) The deceased would appear to have died of Traumatic injury and other injuries mentioned above, deceased appear to have died 6-8 hrs before postmortem." 4.3. The Investigation Officer arrested the appellant on 19.06.2015 at about 4:00 p.m. and based on his voluntary confession statement, recovered M.O. 1 in the presence of Village Administrative Officer (PW-7). The material objects were sent to the Court under Form 95 with a requisition to send the same for chemical analysis. 4.4. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. and he also collected the postmortem report (Ex.P.8), chemical report (Ex.P.11) and also the serological report (Ex.P.12) and completed his investigation and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam. 5. The case was committed to the file of the Mahila Court, Thoothukudi and charges were framed against the accused for the offense under section 302 of IPC. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-13 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.17 and material objects M.O. 1 to M.O. 9. 6. The trial Court questioned the appellant under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by putting all the materials collected during the course of trial and the same was denied as false and the appellant also gave his written explanation under Section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. 7. The trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also assessing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in the manner indicated supra. Submissions: 8. Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:- (i) A reading of evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 shows that, there was an earlier complaint given by the Owner/Manager of the Salt Plant, pursuant to which, the police were present in the scene of crime at 6:30 a.m. and the statements of PW-1 to PW-3 were also recorded and the earliest complaint as well the statements that were recorded have been concealed in this case. (ii) The incident, as projected by the prosecution is false, as it has been stated that a complaint has been received from the father of the deceased (PW-1), who has not even seen the incident and that itself shows that the genesis of the case has been concealed by the prosecution. (ii) The incident, as projected by the prosecution is false, as it has been stated that a complaint has been received from the father of the deceased (PW-1), who has not even seen the incident and that itself shows that the genesis of the case has been concealed by the prosecution. (iii) The incident had not taken place at 6:00 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution since the deceased is said to have gone along with PW-2 and PW-3 to the Salt Plant at about 5:00 a.m. in the morning and the incident had taken place at 6:00 a.m. However, the postmortem doctor had categorically stated in the postmortem certificate that partially digested food of 200 ml was found in the stomach of the deceased. For the food to get partially digested, it will atleast take a couple of hours after the food is taken and there is nothing to show that the deceased left after taking food at 5:00 a.m. in the morning. Therefore, partially digested food was the food that was taken in the previous day night by the deceased and the incident had taken place even before 6:00 a.m. and therefore, the case as projected by the prosecution is false. (iv) PW-1 has stated in his evidence that the complaint was written at the scene of occurrence and it was collected from there by the police. This evidence of PW-1 is completely contrary to the evidence of PW-9, who had registered the F.I.R. He says that PW-1 came to the police station and gave a complaint and only thereafter, F.I.R. was registered at about 9:00 a.m. That apart, there was also a delay in the express F.I.R. reaching the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti only at 5:15 p.m. on 19.06.2015 and this delay has not been explained. (v) If really there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased, on the previous day, regarding the non-payment of money for consuming liquor, the attack would have taken place at the very same time on the same day and it was very unnatural for the appellant to wait till early morning next day and thereafter attack the deceased, when she was going for work. The police in order to conceal the genesis of the case, wanted to keep this motive as a reason for the entire occurrence and this motive is highly unnatural and unbelievable. 9. Mr. The police in order to conceal the genesis of the case, wanted to keep this motive as a reason for the entire occurrence and this motive is highly unnatural and unbelievable. 9. Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State made the following submissions:- (i) The evidence of RW-2 and PW-3, who are the eye witnesses, makes it very clear that it was only the appellant, who had committed the offence and had attacked the deceased using M.O. 1. (ii) The contradictions that have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 does not in any way discredit the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. (iii) The incident had taken place on 19.06.2015 at about 6:00 a.m. and the F.I.R. was registered by PW-1 at about 9:00 a.m. and the express F.I.R. reached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti at about 5:15 p.m. and the delay has been perfectly explained by the Head Constable (PW-8) and therefore, the delay cannot be put against the prosecution. That apart, the Investigating Officer (PW-13) was present in the scene of crime by 10:30 a.m. and therefore, the case as projected by the prosecution is cogent. (iv) The injuries sustained by the deceased has been explained by the postmortem doctor (PW-10) and the postmortem certificate was given by him (Ex.P.8). That apart, the serological report (Ex.P.12) also explains the presence of blood in all the material objects that were recovered (B Group) which coincides with the blood group of the deceased. (v) PW-2 and PW-3 are distant relatives of the deceased and there was no reason for them to make a false allegation against the appellant and unnecessarily rope him as accused in this case. (vi) The arrest and recovery has been proved in this case and the same has been corroborated by the evidence of Village Administrative Officer, who was examined as PW-7. (vii) The trial Court had taken into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Discussion: 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also analyzed the oral and documentary evidence. 10.1. (vii) The trial Court had taken into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Discussion: 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also analyzed the oral and documentary evidence. 10.1. PW-1 to PW-3 are the main witnesses, whose evidence have to be analyzed before coming to any conclusion in this case. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He speaks about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant and the repeated misunderstanding between them, in view of the fact that the appellant was addicted to consuming alcohol and he did not go to any job and was asking money every time from the deceased. As a result of the same, the deceased along with her two children had come back to her parent's house and she was also going to work in a Salt Plant, nearby. 10.2. On 18.06.2015 the appellant is said to have met the deceased at her parent's house and again demanded for money to drink liquor. There was, a wordy quarrel and the deceased refused to pay any money to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is said to have threatened the deceased to the effect that, in a week, he will murder her. The next day (i.e.) on 19.06.2015, the deceased had left for work along with PW-2 to PW-3 at about 5:00 a.m. Thereafter, PW-1 got the news that his daughter has been attacked by the appellant and he went to the scene of occurrence at about 6:00 a.m. and he saw PW-2 and PW-3 in the said place. He further states that the Owner/Marriage of the Salt Plant had given a complaint to the police and the police were also present in the scene of occurrence and they had recorded the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. He proceeds to state that Ex.P.1 was prepared by the son of PW-1, viz. Paulselvam and he had signed the same and thereafter, it was handed over to the police station. 10.3. It is clear from the evidence of PW-1 that even before an F.I.R. was registered at 9:00 a.m. by PW-9, the police were aware about the incident and they had come to the place of occurrence and had recorded' the statements of PW-1. 10.3. It is clear from the evidence of PW-1 that even before an F.I.R. was registered at 9:00 a.m. by PW-9, the police were aware about the incident and they had come to the place of occurrence and had recorded' the statements of PW-1. Further evidence of PW-2, who was examined as eyewitness by the prosecution shows that, the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence within half-an-hour and had also recorded the statements of PW-1 to PW-3. PW-3, had further stated in the cross examination that he went to the scene of crime after hearing the sound and he saw the appellant moving away from there. 10.4. The evidence of RW-9, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. also assumes significance. He has stated that PW-1 came to the Police Station along with PW-2 and gave a complaint at about 9:00 a.m. on 19.06.2015 and thereafter, an F.I.R. was registered in Crime No. 89 of 2015. 11. It will also be relevant to take note of the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW-13, in this regard. He has stated that the person who originally gave the complaint, viz. Ashok Kumar was examined and his statement was recorded. However, this witness was not examined on the side of the prosecution. He further states that he went to the scene of occurrence only based on the complaint given by Ashok Kumar and examined PW-2 and PW-3 at the scene of crime. 12. A cumulative reading of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, PW-9, and PW-13, clearly shows that there was an earlier complaint in this case, immediately after the occurrence. Pursuant to the complaint, police were present in the scene of occurrence as early as at 6:30 a.m. on 19.06.2015. That apart, statements were recorded from PW-1 to PW-3. The earliest complaint and the earliest statements given by PW-1 to PW-3, were all concealed by the prosecution in this case. That apart, one Ashok Kumar, who is the Owner/Manager of the Salt Plant had been examined by the Investigating Officer and his statements was also recorded and it is not known as to why his complaint was not marked before this Court and why he was not examined as a witness in this case. That apart, one Ashok Kumar, who is the Owner/Manager of the Salt Plant had been examined by the Investigating Officer and his statements was also recorded and it is not known as to why his complaint was not marked before this Court and why he was not examined as a witness in this case. It is therefore clear that, the prosecution has not come up with completely true case since it has concealed the earliest information and also the earliest statements that were recorded from the witnesses. 13. It is the admitted case that the appellant was addicted to liquor and he used to pick up frequent quarrels with the deceased and asked for money to consume liquor. The deceased had come out of the matrimonial home along with her two children and was staying with her parents. On the previous day, it is alleged that the appellant had demanded for money and she refused to pay the money and therefore, the appellant had threatened that, he will kill her in a week. Next day (i.e.) on 19.06.2015, this incident is said to have taken place between 5:45 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The motive as' projected by the prosecution, looks very unnatural. The appellant, husband of the deceased being a drunkard, if he was really enraged by the act of the deceased in not paying him the money, he would have resorted to attack the deceased on the very same day. He need not have really planned for a murder to be committed early morning on the next day. This unnatural conduct becomes very relevant since the prosecution has not come up with the true case, by concealing the genesis of the case and has not revealed as to what was the earliest complaint given and what were the earliest statements that were recorded from PW-1 to PW-3 and what was the statement that was given by Ashok Kumar, who was the Owner/Manager of the Salt Plant. All this has been kept in dark and has been concealed. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily take an adverse inference on the conduct of the prosecution. If all these materials have been put before the Court, the Court would have had an opportunity to know the actual manner in which the incident had taken place However, it has not happened in this case. 14. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily take an adverse inference on the conduct of the prosecution. If all these materials have been put before the Court, the Court would have had an opportunity to know the actual manner in which the incident had taken place However, it has not happened in this case. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, where the prosecution has concealed the genesis of the case, the case of the prosecution has to fail for that very reason itself We are not coming to such a conclusion merely based on surmises or assumptions We are coming to such a conclusion based on appreciation of evidence and based on what has been stated before the Court by PW-1 and PW-2 This attitude of the prosecution in not revealing the initial complaint and the initial statements recorded from the witnesses, throws a lot of doubt on the case of the prosecution and therefore, this Court has to necessarily extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant Even though PW-2 and PW-3 were examined on the side of the prosecution as eyewitnesses, due to the concealment of the genesis of the case by the prosecution, their evidence becomes very doubtful. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are left with no other alternative except to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Conclusion: 16. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all charges and the appellant, who is now serving the sentence, is directed to be released forthwith, if his confinement is not required in any other case. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 425 of 2018 is closed.