JUDGMENT : B. Pugalendhi, J. 1. The appellant, who is the sole accused, was charged for the offence under Sections 394 r/w 398 IPC and tried before the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, in S.C. No. 13 of 2013 and the trial Court, by order dated 17.02.2014, found the appellant/accused guilty under Sections 394 r/w 398 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i/d to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. As against the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows: 2.1. According to the prosecution, PW1, namely, Mariyammal, along with her sister, namely, Subbulakshmi and her husband, namely, Sambathkumar were travelling in Pothigai Express from Chennai to Shencottai on 02.03.2012. On the next day, i.e., on 03.03.2012, at about 08.00 am, when PW1 returned from the latrine, the accused, at knife point, pushed her into the latrine and attempted to snatch the chain from the victim [PW1]. On the hue and cry raised by PW1, PW2 and others rushed to the latrine, rescued PW1 from the accused and at that time, the accused managed to escape and jumped out of the train. PW2, immediately, pulled the chain and stopped the train. 2.2. PW4, the Railway Constable, who was travelling in the train, took the victim [PW1] to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur, where she was provided first aid treatment and thereafter, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. On the intimation given by the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur, the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW7] went to the Hospital at about 12.30 noon and found that the victim was shifted to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and went to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and recorded the statement of PW1 [Ex. P1] around 03.00 pm and registered the case in Crime No. 38 of 2012, on 03.03.2012, at about 06.00 pm, for the offence under Sections 397 & 511 IPC. 2.3. The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Force, Virudhunagar [PW8], on receipt of the information, went to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai and recorded the statements of the witnesses, PW1, PW2 and his wife and thereafter, went to the place of occurrence on 04.03.2012 at about 06.00 am and prepared the observation mahazar [Ex. P3] and a rough sketch [Ex. 2.3. The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Force, Virudhunagar [PW8], on receipt of the information, went to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai and recorded the statements of the witnesses, PW1, PW2 and his wife and thereafter, went to the place of occurrence on 04.03.2012 at about 06.00 am and prepared the observation mahazar [Ex. P3] and a rough sketch [Ex. P7] in the presence of witnesses PW3 and another. PW8, thereafter, went to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai and arrested the accused, who was taking treatment in the Hospital, in the presence of PW2 and one Selvam, at about 03.30 pm. He also examined the Doctor and other witnesses and collected the wound certificate and after obtaining the opinion from the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Tirunelveli, filed the final report as against the accused on 16.07.2012 for the offence under Sections 394 & 398 IPC. 2.4. During the trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and seven documents were marked and one material object, i.e., the knife recovered from the accused, was produced. 3. The available evidence on the side of the prosecution, is as follows: (i) PW1, namely, Mariyammal, is the victim and she speaks about the occurrence and the lodging of the complaint [Ex. P1]. She also identified the weapon MO1. (ii) PW2, namely, Sambathkumar, is the sister's husband of PW1, who accompanied PW1 in the train. He also speaks about the arrest and recovery of the knife [MO1]. (iii) PW3, namely, Rasu, is the witness for the observation mahazar and sketch prepared by the investigation officer at the place of occurrence. (iv) PW4, namely, Roy, is the Railway Constable, who travelled in the train on the date of occurrence and also took the victim [PW1] to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur. (v) PW5, namely, Kalarani, is the Gate Keeper of Mangalapuram Railway Gate, near which the accused jumped out of the train and the train was stopped there. (vi) PW6, namely, Shanmugaiya, is the Doctor, who provided first aid to the victim [PW1] as well as the accused. The wound certificate issued by the Doctor to the victim is marked as Ex. P4 and the accused is marked as Ex. P5. (vii) PW7, namely, Ramachandran, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint. The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex. P6. The wound certificate issued by the Doctor to the victim is marked as Ex. P4 and the accused is marked as Ex. P5. (vii) PW7, namely, Ramachandran, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint. The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex. P6. (viii) PW8, namely, Sivakumar, is the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Virudhunagar, who conducted investigation and filed the final report. 4. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the in criminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same. The accused has stated that the victim [PW1] was known to him and she only informed him that she is travelling in the train on that day and asked him to accompany with her. On that day, when they were taking near the latrine, one Sambathkumar, PW1's sister's husband [PW2] noticed them, assaulted and pushed him out from the moving train. On the alarm raised by PW1, the train was stopped. Though he has stated that there are witnesses to support his case, no defence witness was examined. In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. As against the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Mr. AK. Azagarsami, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following points for the consideration of this case: 6.1. The prosecution case is a foisted one and that the appellant is having an intimacy with PW1 and on seeing the appellant talking with PW1, PW2 assaulted him and also pushed him out from the running train. In order to cover up the same, PW2 has foisted a false case against the appellant. 6.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused, on that day, attempted to snatch away the jewels worn by PW1. But there is no reference as to the details of the jewels worn by her. 6.3. There is an inordinate delay in registering the First Information Report. The occurrence took place on 03.03.2012 at about 08.00 am, but the First Information Report was registered only at 06.00 pm and the First Information Report also reached the Court with an inordinate delay of more than ten hours. 6.4. 6.3. There is an inordinate delay in registering the First Information Report. The occurrence took place on 03.03.2012 at about 08.00 am, but the First Information Report was registered only at 06.00 pm and the First Information Report also reached the Court with an inordinate delay of more than ten hours. 6.4. The earlier complaint received in this case has been suppressed. According to the evidence of PW1, PW5, the Railway Constable who accompanied them in the train, has recorded a statement from her. But the same was not placed before the Court. 6.5. The arrest and recovery has not been proved in this case. The signature of the accused has not found place in the Athatchi [Ex. P2] and the date and arrest in Ex. P2 has been tampered with through another Pen and another handwriting. 6.6. Apart from that, the admissible portion of the confession statement has not been marked in this case and the document Ex. P2 has been marked only through PW2, against whom the accused has made a complaint that he only pushed him out from the train. According to the learned Counsel, PW2 is a railway employee as well as a member of the Railway Mazdoor Union and therefore, the Railway Police has foisted a false case against him. 6.7. The Accident Register of the victim [PW1] as well as the appellant/accused have not been produced before the Court and thereby, they have suppressed the documents before the Court. 6.8. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in the case of Venkatachalam @ Sakthi v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station, Erode District, (2018) 2 MWN (Cr.) 608 : LNINDORD 2018 MAD 6079 : (2018) 3 MLJ (Crl) 586, wherein, the conduct of the accused therein has been looked into. In the present case, though the accused was admitted in the Hospital on 03.03.2012 at about 08.45 am, the arrest was made only on 04.03.2012 at about 01.30 pm. Moreover, the theory of the prosecution that the accused was having the knife in his waist is highly unbelievable. That apart, there was no bloodstains in the weapon [MO1] recovered from him. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for interference. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State has made her submissions as follows: 7.1. That apart, there was no bloodstains in the weapon [MO1] recovered from him. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for interference. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State has made her submissions as follows: 7.1. The case in Crime No. 38 of 2012 was registered only on the intimation given by the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur. The Sub-Inspector of Police [PW7], received the intimation at about 10.00 am, went to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur at about 12.30 noon. But, in the meantime, the victim [PW1] was transferred to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and therefore, he went to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, around 02.00 pm and recorded the statement and thereafter, returned to the Police Station and registered the case only at 06.00 pm. Therefore, there is no delay in registering the case. 7.2. PWs 1 & 2 have categorically stated that the accused, at knife point, has attempted to snatch away the jewels worn by PW1 in the moving train and in the course of the action, has also caused injury to PW1, which was noted down by the Doctor [PW6] and also issued the wound certificate [Ex. P4]. 7.3. The accused attempted to snatch away the jewels worn by PW1 and also jumped out of the moving train, during which, he sustained injuries. This was proved from the evidence of the Doctor [PW6] and the wound certificate [Ex. P5] issued by him. Therefore, the case of the prosecution has been established through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 6 that the accused is guilty for the commission of offence on the date of occurrence in a moving train. 7.4. Though the Accident Registers have not been marked in this case, according to the learned Government Advocate, through the wound certificates [Ex. P4 & Ex. P5] as well as the evidence of the Doctor [PW6], the prosecution has established the nature of injury sustained by the victim as well as the accused on the date of occurrence. 7.5. Though in the First Information Report, the name of the accused was recorded as that of an identifiable person aged about 25 years, the victim identified the accused in the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, where both the victim as well as the accused were taking treatment. 7.5. Though in the First Information Report, the name of the accused was recorded as that of an identifiable person aged about 25 years, the victim identified the accused in the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, where both the victim as well as the accused were taking treatment. Therefore, the question of identification parade does not arise in this case and according to the learned Government Advocate, the prosecution has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt and there is no reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. 8. This Court has paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record. 9. The occurrence was taken place in a moving train, wherein, according to the prosecution, PW1, while coming out of the latrine, was pushed into the latrine by the accused and the accused attempted to snatch away the jewels worn by her. On hearing the hue and cry, PW2 rescued PW1 and in order to escape from PW2, the accused jumped out of the moving train and therefore, PW2 pulled the chain and stopped the train. The occurrence was taken place on 03.03.2012 at about 08.00 am and immediately, the victim [PW1] was taken to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur at about 08.30 am, where, the Doctor [PW6] provided first aid and also referred her to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli for further treatment. 10. On the complaint lodged by PW1, the case was registered as against an identifiable person aged about 25 years and the appellant/accused was also arrested. But during the evidence, PW1 has stated that the accused was known to her. This evidence of PW1 is contrary to her complaint in Ex. P1. 11. It is her further evidence that when she was coming from the latrine, the accused, at knife point, pushed her back into the latrine and kept her inside for about ten minutes at knife point. On the alarm raised by her, her sister, namely, Subbulakshmi and her husband, Sambathkumar [PW2] rescued her from the latrine. The compartment in which the occurrence was taken place is a General Compartment [unreservation compartment], next to the railway engine, where normally the crowd will be more. Admittedly, no independent witness was examined in this case. The train was stopped after PW2 pulled the chain. The compartment in which the occurrence was taken place is a General Compartment [unreservation compartment], next to the railway engine, where normally the crowd will be more. Admittedly, no independent witness was examined in this case. The train was stopped after PW2 pulled the chain. But, no records have been recovered from the railway authorities as to the reason for stopping the train on the date of occurrence. Similarly, the investigation agency has also not recovered any tickets from PWs 1 & 2. 12. PWl's sister, namely, Subbulakshmi, who travelled in the train, was examined as LW3 during the investigation. But she was not examined as a witness during the trial. Similarly, one Kalpana, D/o. Subbulakshmi, who also travelled along with PW1 and others, was not examined during the investigation and trial. 13. The occurrence took place on 03.03.2012 at about 08.00 am. Immediately, PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur and a medical intimation was sent from the Hospital to the Railway Police, Virudhunagar at about 10.00 am. PW7, on receipt of the medical intimation, went to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur, at about 12.30 noon and thereafter, went to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and recorded the statement [Ex. P1] and registered the case at about 06.00 pm. Though certain reasoning has been assigned by the prosecution for the delay in registering the case, no reason has been afforded by the prosecution for despatching the First Information Report to the concerned Court with a delay often hours, when admittedly the Court is within 5 kms distance from the police station. 14. According to PW1, immediately after the occurrence, the Railway Constable [PW4] who travelled in the train has recorded the statement from her and noted down the manner in which the occurrence has taken place. But, the same was not placed before the Court. Similarly, according to her, when she was taking treatment at Government Hospital, Kadayanallur, Police party from Kadayanallur Police Station came to the Hospital, recorded the statement and also obtained her signature in the statement. But, that statement was also not placed before the Court. 15. After the accused jumped out of the train, PW2 is said to have pulled the chain and stopped the train near Mangalapuram Railway gate. The gate keeper of Mangalapuram Railway gate, namely, Kalarani was examined as PW5. But, that statement was also not placed before the Court. 15. After the accused jumped out of the train, PW2 is said to have pulled the chain and stopped the train near Mangalapuram Railway gate. The gate keeper of Mangalapuram Railway gate, namely, Kalarani was examined as PW5. PW5, though refers about PWs 1 & 2 getting down from the train and taken to the Hospital, did not refer about the accused jumping out of the train. 16. The accused was also admitted in the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur, at about 08.45 am, on 03.03.2012. According to the Doctor [PW6], he was brought to the Hospital by a different Police and PW1 was brought to the Hospital by a different Police. The Accident Register, which is a crucial document in this case, has not been recovered and placed before the Court. According to the Doctor [PW6], the Accident Register for the victim [PW1] as well as the accused were registered in Serial Nos. 3595191, 3595192, respectively. Though the Accident Registers were very much available in this case, no reason has been assigned by the prosecution for not recovering the Accident Registers and placing the same before the Court. 17. The weapon [MO1] was recovered from the Waist of the accused on the next day, i.e., on 04.03.2012, at abut 01.30 pm, when the accused was taking treatment at Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. There is no bloodstains in the weapon [MO1]. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the conduct of the appellant/accused in keeping the weapon along with him even while taking treatment at the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur and taking the same to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, is highly doubtful. In this regard, in the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in Venkatachalam @ Sakthi v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station, Erode District (supra), this Court, has held as follows: "13. What becomes important for this Court to consider is to see whether on the facts as projected by the prosecution, a case for robbery has been made out. The case of the prosecution is that early morning on 02.10.2008, the accused who is the neighbour of PW1 has entered into her house and has taken away Rs. 4,900/- after causing simple injuries to her. The case of the prosecution is that early morning on 02.10.2008, the accused who is the neighbour of PW1 has entered into her house and has taken away Rs. 4,900/- after causing simple injuries to her. On the very same day, the Police apprehend him and on his arrest, he is said to have handed over Rs. 4,900/- [Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred Only] to the Police voluntarily. 14. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically deals with previous and subsequent conduct which is a relevant fact which can be taken into consideration when a Court decides a fact in issue. The conduct to be relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act must fall within certain timeframe of proximity as the conduct must either influence, or be influenced by any fact in issue or a relevant fact. In this case the subsequent conduct of the accused assumes significance. 15. If really the accused person had committed an offence as serious as projected in the present case, it is unbelievable that he will keep the money that was robbed in his house which is the next door to PW-1 and will be freely available in and around the place. The natural conduct of a person who commits a robbery, is to flee from the place or to conceal what was robbed by him from a person. In the present case, the theory of robbery as projected by the prosecution is so unnatural and doubtful. The accused person is admittedly known to PW1 for a long period of time and they are admittedly neighbours. Therefore, to say that the accused person committed a robbery in the house of a neighbour who is a well known person, sounds very unnatural. 16. Section 114 of the Evidence Act also gives an indication as to when a Court may presume the existence of certain facts. While making such a presumption regard must be had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. As the language of the Section indicates, the presumptions are based on practical experience and common sense. For the purpose of reaching one conclusion, the Court can rely on a factual presumption unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted. As the language of the Section indicates, the presumptions are based on practical experience and common sense. For the purpose of reaching one conclusion, the Court can rely on a factual presumption unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted. Useful reference can be made to the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhim Mohammed, (2002) Cr.L.J. 1906, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "Presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It means a rule of law that Courts shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact or from a particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumptions help in determining the probative force of evidence by bringing the estimation of probative force under some inflexible rules excluding judicial discretion. The presumptions may be raised on the stock of evidence available on the record unless the laws say that the Court shall presume a fact unless and until it is disproved. There may be cases where the burden to disprove the presumption is on the accused. But present is a case where the prosecution is not relieved of its burden of proving the facts and providing a foundation for raising a presumption. Section 114 of the Act says that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regarding being had to the common course of natural events human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The term that presumption of fact is used to designate an inference of affirmative or dis-affirmative of the existence of some fact drawn by Court by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of act either judicially notices, or admitted, or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the Court. Without inferring the existence of the fact from others, Courts of justice do nothing more than apply, under the sanction of law, a process of reasoning which the mind of any intelligent being, would not in similar circumstance, ever apply for itself; and the force of which rests altogether on experience and observation of the course of nature, the constitution of human mind, the springs of human action and the usage and habits of Society." 17. The most important rule as to presumptions is that they must be based upon facts and not upon inferences or upon other presumptions. While inferring the existence of fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of independent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. 18. It is true that the accused went to the house of PW1 and it is also true that PW1 sustained simple injuries caused by the accused person. The theory of robbery has been interpolated into these facts and it sounds absolutely unnatural and artificial. In this case, the so called Confession made by the accused person and on such Confession a sum of Rs. 4,900/- [Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred Only] being seized from the accused person, has not been established by the prosecution. PW2, PW3, and PW4 have not supported the case of the prosecution insofar as the confession of the accused is concerned. 19. On the facts of the case, this Court is not convinced that the accused person committed the offence of robbery. Therefore, the charges under Sections 450, 392 and 394 IPC is unsustainable. However, there are sufficient materials to show that the accused has trespassed into the house of PW1 and has voluntarily caused hurt and therefore is publishable for an offence under Section 323 and 447 IPC." 18. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no bloodstains in the weapon [MO1] and further, there are corrections in the Athatchi [Ex. P2], where the date and time of arrest and recovery has been interpolated later with a different ink and handwriting. The weapon [MO1] recovered was not shown to the Doctor [PW6] to obtain his opinion as to the possibility of the injury sustained by the victim [PW1] through that weapon. 19. It is the specific case of the appellant that the Accident Register is a crucial document and the victim [PW1] has informed the Doctor [PW6] that the occurrence and the injury was by a known person. This Court finds some force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Accident Register was purportedly not recovered and marked by the respondent Police. 20. This Court finds some force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Accident Register was purportedly not recovered and marked by the respondent Police. 20. According to PW4, the Railway Police, who travelled in the train on the date of occurrence, has immediately attended the victim [PW1] and also took the victim to the Hospital. According to him, he immediately intimated the Inspector, Railway Police, Senkottai as well as Tirunelveli, though he knows that the occurrence place comes within the jurisdiction of Inspector, Railway Police, Virudhunagar. It is much more surprise to note that though two police officials, namely, Inspector, Railway Police, Senkottai as well as Tirunelveli were informed about the incident, there is no reason assigned on the side of the prosecution as to why the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW7] was not informed by any of the officials, except the intimation from the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur. This medical intimation received has also not been placed before the Court. 21. The appellant has taken a specific stand that the victim [PW1] is known to him and on her request only, he travelled in that train on the date of occurrence and on noticing that they were talking together, PW2 assaulted them and pushed PW1 inside the latrine, where she sustained the injury on her neck and also pushed him out of the moving train. On the hue and cry raised by PW1, the train was stopped. PW1 in her evidence admits that the appellant is known to her and she informed the Doctor, Government Hospital, Kadayanallur at the time of her examination that the accused person was known to her. While so, the complaint was registered as if an identifiable 25 years old person. 22. This fact, coupled with the interpolations in Ex. P2 regarding the arrest and recovery as well as non-recovery of the Accident Register and other infirmities discussed above, this Court is inclined to infer that the case has been foisted against the appellant. Though the prosecution has stated that the accused has attempted to snatch away the chain from the victim [PW1], neither the chain nor the descriptive of the chain is mentioned either in Ex. Pl or in any of the evidence of the prosecution as to what the victim worn at the relevant point of time. 23. Though the prosecution has stated that the accused has attempted to snatch away the chain from the victim [PW1], neither the chain nor the descriptive of the chain is mentioned either in Ex. Pl or in any of the evidence of the prosecution as to what the victim worn at the relevant point of time. 23. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond any reasonable doubt and that the appellant/accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, in S.C. No. 13 of 2013, dated 17.02.2014, are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him in respect of the present case. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant/accused and bail bonds shall stand terminated. In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed.