JUDGMENT : R. Pongiappan, J. Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the Judgment dated 26.06.2014 in S.C.No.24 of 2012, passed by the Mahila Court, Cuddalore District. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore dated 26.06.2014 in S.C.No.24 of 2012. 2. The appellants 1 to 5 are arrayed as Al to A5. The accused 1 to 5 are charged for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4-B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and the first accused is additionally charged for the offence under Sections 341 and 496 of Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 26.06.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore convicted all the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three months, one month and three years rigorous imprisonment for the above said offences respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- by each accused, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. However, the first accused is acquitted for the offence under Sections 341 and 496 of Indian Penal Code and all the accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 4-B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. 4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused are before this Court by filing the present Criminal Appeal. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) On 22.07.2009, at about 5.45 P.M., while at the time the deceased came from school, near to teak wood grove, the first accused herein wantonly tied mangal sutra to the deceased. In this regard, PW1 who is the father of the deceased, on 23.07.2009 at about 10.30 A.M., lodged complaint under Ex.P.7 before the Mangalampettai Police Station. On receipt of the same, PW10, Arumugam, the then Head Constable assigned the C.S.R.No.136 of 2009 and kept the complaint for enquiry. Due to the same, all the accused on 24.07.2009, at about 7 A.M., went to the house of PWl and abused the deceased and her family members by using the filthy language as “TAMIL”. On receipt of the same, PW10, Arumugam, the then Head Constable assigned the C.S.R.No.136 of 2009 and kept the complaint for enquiry. Due to the same, all the accused on 24.07.2009, at about 7 A.M., went to the house of PWl and abused the deceased and her family members by using the filthy language as “TAMIL”. During such time, all the accused insulted the deceased as “TAMIL” Resultantly, due to the said insult, the deceased viz., Manimala, consumed herbicide and died at about 13.15 hrs. For the said occurrence on 24.07.2009 at about 4.30 P.M., PW1 had given a complaint under Ex.P.1. Upon receiving the said complaint, PW10 registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2009 under Sections 147, 294 and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The printed First Information Report has been marked as Ex.P.8. (ii) Immediately, after registration of the said case, PW10 visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW6, Ramakrishnan and PW7, Chinnadurai, he prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P.9 and rough sketch under Ex.P.10. Further, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day about 19.15 hrs, he arrested the accused and sent them to judicial custody. After completing the above formalities, he handed over the case records to PW11, who is the then Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai Police Station for further investigation. (iii) On receipt of the case records, PW11 took up the same for further investigation. He visited the Government Hospital, Viruthachalam and in the presence of Panchayatar, he prepared the inquest report under Ex.P.11. Subsequent to that, through one Head Constable Radhakrishnan, he sent a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy. (iv) On receipt of the said requisition, PW8, Dr.Saminathan attached with Government Hospital, Virudhachalam on 25.07.2009, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and found no external injuries. He collected the viscera and sent the same for chemical examination. In turn, on receipt of the said viscera, PW9, Rosemani, who was working as Junior Scientific Assistant, Forensic Science Department, Villupuram examined the same and sent a report that there was organo phosphorous insecticide. On receipt of the said report under Ex.P.5, PW8 came to the conclusion that the deceased would have been died by consuming the said poison. The postmortem report issued by PW8 has been marked as Ex.P.4. On receipt of the said report under Ex.P.5, PW8 came to the conclusion that the deceased would have been died by consuming the said poison. The postmortem report issued by PW8 has been marked as Ex.P.4. (v) In continuance of the investigation, PW11 altered the Sections of law from 147, 294(b) and 306 of Indian Penal Code to 147, 341, 496, 294(b) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4-B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. The alteration report prepared by PW11 has been marked as Ex.P.12. Thereafter, PW12, Thirumal, the Inspector of Police took up the case records for further investigation. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He came to the positive conclusion that accused have committed offences under Sections 147, 341, 496, 294(b) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4-B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and filed final report. 6. Based on the above materials, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore took the case on file in S.C.No.24 of 2012 and framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 496, 294(b) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4-B of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. The accused denied the same and opted for trial. In order to prove their case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as twelve witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW12 and 12 documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. 7. Out of the said witnesses, PW1, Arumugam is the father of the deceased, Manimala. He speaks about the occurrence that on 22.07.2009 at about 5.45 P.M., when his daughter was coming near Teak Wood grove, the first accused herein without getting any consent from the deceased tied mangal sutra and declared that he reached his ambition. When the same was informed by the deceased to PW1, he advised his daughter to wait for sometime. He further stated that on 24.07.2009, all the accused herein came to his house and abused him by using filthy language. After hearing the abusive words spoken by the accused, the deceased ran into the house and consumed poison, and there after, immediately, she was brought to the Government Hospital, Vimdhachalam and from the said hospital, she was brought to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore. After hearing the abusive words spoken by the accused, the deceased ran into the house and consumed poison, and there after, immediately, she was brought to the Government Hospital, Vimdhachalam and from the said hospital, she was brought to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore. However, on the same day at about 11.45 A.M., the deceased died. In this regard, PW1 lodged complaint before the Police. 8. PW2 and PW3 viz., Boomadevi and Mageshwari who are the mother and sister of the deceased have deposed the occurrence as similar to the evidence given by PW1. 9. PW4 and PW5 viz., Selvaraj and Shanmugam cited as occurrence witness have not supported the case of prosecution and thereby, they have treated as hostile witnesses. 10. In the same way, PW6 and PW7 viz., Ramakrishnan and Chinnadurai who are the witnesses attested in the observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared by the investigation officer, have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, they have also treated as hostile witnesses. 11. PW8, Dr.Saminathan, attached with Government Hospital, Virudhachalam speaks about the autopsy conducted over the body of the deceased and about the cause of the death. 12. PW9, Rosemani, who was working as Junior Scientific Assistant in Forensic Science Department, Villupuram speaks about the examination of the viscera of the deceased. According to him, in the viscera, organo phosphorous insecticide was found, and the same is the reason for the death of the deceased. 13. PW10 to PW12 viz., Arumugam, Saravanakumaran and Thirumal are the police officers, deposed in respect of the registration of the case, recording of statements from witnesses, about the alteration of Sections of law and about the filing of final report against the accused. 14. When the above incriminating evidence, were put to the appellant/accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, they denied the same as false. However, in order to prove their case, they neither produced witnesses on their side nor marked any documents. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering all the material documents and on considering the arguments put forth by either sides, convicted the appellant/accused as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused are before this Court. 15. I have heard Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 16. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused are before this Court. 15. I have heard Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 16. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses are having lot of contradictions. Further the evidence put forth by PW1 to PW3 creates doubt as to whether the case pertains to these appellants was registered as stated by the PW1 and PW10. The contents made in Ex.P.7 proves the fact that the genesis of the occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and the same itself, is sufficient to allow this appeal. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence. 17. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would contend that though the evidence given by PW1 to PW3 is having some contradictions, the same is minor in nature and therefore, the same cannot be taken into account for considering this appeal. He would further contend that since the witnesses cited in the final report are examined after sometime from the date of occurrence, it is natural and probable to give evidence only with minor contradictions. In otherwise, the registration of the First Information Report is immaterial for deciding this appeal. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 18. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. 19. The summoning of entire evidence given by PW1 to PW3 reveals the fact that before the occurrence, the first accused tied mangal sutra to the deceased without getting consent from her and for which deceased lodged complaint before PW7. Only due to the same, the family members of the first accused got annoyed and came to the house of the deceased and abused the deceased and others by using filthy language. In respect of the same, though the evidence given by PW1 to PW3 are having some minor contradictions, the same is not in the form of affecting the root of the prosecution case. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in " 2019 (8) SCC 371 ", the same cannot be taken into account for allowing the appeal in entirety. 20. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in " 2019 (8) SCC 371 ", the same cannot be taken into account for allowing the appeal in entirety. 20. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is that in respect of the registration of the case, the evidence given by PW1 and PW10 to PW12 possess lot of contradictions. In fact, initially the police officer has registered the case for the alleged occurrence under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and the same has not been enlightened before this Court. The said act committed by the police amounts to suppression of material fact and also the same creates doubt whether the alleged occurrence had happened as stated by the prosecution. 21. In this regard, in respect to the same, PW1 has stated that in respect of the occurrence dated 22.07.2009, her daughter lodged complaint before the police. Further, the said complaint dated 22.07.2009 given by the deceased has been marked as Ex.P.7. In the said complaint, she has clearly narrated the occurrence dated 22.07.2009 wherein the first accused wantonly tied mangal sutra to the deceased. Though the said complaint contains the date i.e., 22.07.2009, the endorsement made by the police officer in the police station reveals the fact that the police officer registered the said complaint of the deceased on 23.07.2009 and further the said case has been registered under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. 22. Thereafter, only on 23.07.2009, the deceased was died. On the other hand, the entire case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2009 after hearing the abusive words made by the accused, the deceased committed suicide. Further the evidence given by PW1 is very clear that only on 24.07.2009, he lodged complaint before the Police Station. 23. Now on going through the contents of the First Information Report, it appears that the present case has been registered in Crime No. 157 of 2009 on 24.07.2009 for the occurrence happened on the same day morning. Therefore, the totality of the entire evidence put forth by the prosecution creates doubt whether the deceased consumed poison on 24.07.2009 or 23.07.2009. If she consumed the poison on 23.07.2009, the entire occurrence narrated by the prosecution witnesses are false one. Therefore, the totality of the entire evidence put forth by the prosecution creates doubt whether the deceased consumed poison on 24.07.2009 or 23.07.2009. If she consumed the poison on 23.07.2009, the entire occurrence narrated by the prosecution witnesses are false one. In otherwise, if the occurrence had happened on 24.07.2009, there is no necessity for the police officers to register the case under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code on the complaint given by the deceased. 24. Hence, the above facts and circumstances creates doubt whether the alleged occurrence had happened as stated by PW1. In fact for the reasons best known to the investigation officer, they have not produced the copy of the First Information Report registered in Crime No. 150 of 2009 which relates to the complaint given by the deceased. Therefore, the police officers who investigated this case committed a grave mistake in registering the case. They have not placed the real occurrence before the trial Court. The trial Court without considering those discrepancies, convicted the accused which is liable to be set aside. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the Trial court are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to the appellants/accused.