JUDGMENT : V. BHARATHIDASAN, J. Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) and 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Madurai District in Spl. S.C. No. 77 of 2017 dated 18.04.2018. 1. The appellants are Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Spl. S.C. No. 77 of 2017, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. They stood charged for the offences under Section 341 r/w 34 I.P.C. r/w Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as SC/ST Act), Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. r/w 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 341 r/w 34 I.P.C. r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and sentenced them to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and also to pay of fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 7 days Simple Imprisonment. Further convicted them under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and convicted under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. r/w 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, A1 filed Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 262 of 2018, A2 filed Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 507 of 2018 and A3 filed Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 234 of 2018 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows: PW-1 Karuppasamy, the injured eye-witness, belongs to Sakkimangalam Village, related to one Soundrapandian and he belonged to Scheduled Caste “Pallar” community. Earlier A1's sister, belongs to a Backward Community, married one Parthiban of Sakkimangalam, who belongs to “Pallar” community. Appeal (MD) No. 234 of 2018 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows: PW-1 Karuppasamy, the injured eye-witness, belongs to Sakkimangalam Village, related to one Soundrapandian and he belonged to Scheduled Caste “Pallar” community. Earlier A1's sister, belongs to a Backward Community, married one Parthiban of Sakkimangalam, who belongs to “Pallar” community. Alleging that PW-1 and the said Soundrapandian helped Pathiban and arranged the marriage, in order to take a revenge on him, on 18.08.2017, at about 8.30 a.m. while PW-1 was standing near Karuppayurani bus stop, all the accused, belongs to Backward Community, came in a two-wheeler and A.1 tried to attack PW-1 with bill-hook on the head, while he evaded the attack, he sustained injury in the left hand wrist. A2 also tried to attack him on his neck, but PW-1 pushed him down and ran towards PW-2, who was working as traffic police constable and on duty near the scene of occurrence. On seeing PW-2, all the accused ran away. At that time, PWs. 3 to 6, related to PW-1, got down from Mini Bus near the scene of occurrence, also saw the occurrence. Immediately, PW-1 was sent in a 108 Ambulance to Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and he was admitted by PW-9 Dr. Sumathi and she has issued the Accident Register Extract (Ex.P.5). 3. Thereafter, PW-10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Karuppayurani Police Station, on receipt of information from the Hospital, went there and recorded the statement of PW-1 and at about 12.00 noon registered a criminal case in Crime No. 306 of 2017 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307 I.P.C. r/w with 3(1)(r). 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(v) of SC/ST Act and sent the First Information Report (Ex.P.6) to the concerned Court and copies to the higher officials. Since, the crime has been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, he handed over the investigation to PW-15. 4. PW-15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Umatchikulam Circle, on receipt of the First Information Report, commenced the investigation and visited the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.11) in presence of PW-7 and one Veluraja and she recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 7 and PW-10, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, she obtained community certificates (Ex.P.9) of PW-1 and A1 to A3 from Tahsildar, Madurai East (PW-14). 1 to 7 and PW-10, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, she obtained community certificates (Ex.P.9) of PW-1 and A1 to A3 from Tahsildar, Madurai East (PW-14). In the meantime, on 13.09.2017, A.1 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai. PW-15 took him into police custody on 20.09.2017. On 21.09.2017, A.1, voluntarily come forward to give his confession in the presence of PW-8 and one Muniandi, based on his confession, PW-15 recovered three bill-hooks (M.Os.1 to 3) and sent the same to the Court under Form-95 (Ex.P.12). Thereafter, on 29.09.2017, at 5.45 a.m. she arrested A2 and A3 and remanded them to judicial custody. Thereafter, she examined PW-9 Dr. Sumathi, who admitted PW-1 in hospital, PW-12 Dr. Sathishkannan, who took X-ray and PW-13 Dr. Gobi Manokar, who has given treatment to PW-1, and examined PW-11, Sub-Inspector of Police, who has registered the earlier complaint in Crime No. 287 of 2016, on the file of Silaiman Police Station, in respect of a previous occurrence, in which A1 was involved. After completing the investigation, she altered the charge into Sections 341, 294(b), 326, 307 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1) (v) of SC/ST Act and sent the Alteration Report (Ex.P.13) to the Court and filed the final report on 27.09.2017 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. 5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the judgment and the accused have denied the charges. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked besides three material objects. 6. Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 is the injured eyewitness. According to him, he was working as Bus Ticket Checker, and there was a previous enmity between him and A1, alleging that PW-1 and Soundrapandian helped one Parthiban, who also belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, for getting married A1's sister. In order to wreck vengeance, on the date of occurrence, while he was standing in the Karuppayurani bus stop, all the three accused, who belongs to backward community, came in a motor cycle with bill-hooks, A1 tried to attack him on the head, while he evaded the attack, he sustained cut injury in the left hand wrist and A2 also tried to attack him in the neck. However, he escaped from it and ran towards PW-2, who was regulating the traffic in the area. After seeing PW-2, all the three accused ran away. PW-2, a traffic Constable, posted near the scene of occurrence is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. PWs. 3 to 6, all are related to PW-1, got down from the Mini-bus at the scene of occurrence. PW-3 is an autodriver, who is also related to PW-1, called 108 Ambulance and sent him for treatment. PW-4, related to PW-1, also an eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed that A1 was trying to attack PW-1 with bill-hook and caused cut injury on the left hand. PW-5 is another relative of PW-1 and he deposed that PW-1 was taking treatment in the hospital and he went there to see him. PW-6 came to the scene of occurrence after the occurrence and he also sent PW-1 in an Ambulance to the hospital. PW-7 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar. PW-8, Village Assistant, a mahazar witness for the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3. PW-9 is the doctor working in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, she has admitted PW-1, in the hospital and issued accident register extract (Ex.P.5), she found lacerated injury in the left wrist measuring 6 x 3 x 4 cms. PW-10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the information went to Government Rajaji Hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 and registered the F.I.R. in Crime No. 306 of 2017. PW-11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, working in the Silaiman Police Station, she speaks about the earlier complaint registered in the said police station in Crime No. 287 of 2016 against A1 and others for committing murder of one Muthumanickam, who has helped Parthiban to marry his sister. PW-12, Radiologist working in Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital and he has taken X-ray (Ex.P.7). PW-13 is the doctor, who treated PW-1 and issued Medical Report (Ex.P.8) and according to him there is a fracture in the left ulna phone and he has given treatment. PW-14 is the Tahsildar, who has issued community certificates for PW-1 and A.1 to A.3. PW-15 is the Deputy Superintendent of Umatchikulam Circle, she conducted the investigation, examined the witnesses and filed the final report. 7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused denied the same as false. PW-14 is the Tahsildar, who has issued community certificates for PW-1 and A.1 to A.3. PW-15 is the Deputy Superintendent of Umatchikulam Circle, she conducted the investigation, examined the witnesses and filed the final report. 7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused denied the same as false. However, the accused did not chose to examine any witness nor did they mark any documents on their side. 8. Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused/appellants guilty under the said charges and accordingly sentenced them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the above judgment, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 9. We have heard Mr. S. Ashokkumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.1 and A.2 and Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.3 and Mr. S. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for State. 10. Mr. S. Ashokkumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for A.1 and A.2, would contend that the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the case and the two earliest information given by PWs. 2 and 3 have been suppressed. According to him, as per the evidence of PW-2, immediately after the occurrence, he has called the DSP Camp Office at 8.45 p.m. Thereafter, he has also give an information to Karuppayurani Police Station at 8.50 p.m. and after receipt of the information, PW-10, Sub-Inspector of Police and another Constable came to the place of occurrence and PW-10 recorded his statement. But the said statement was suppressed. PW-3, one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence also given a statement before PW-15 in the Government Hospital, she has recorded the statement and also obtained signature from him, but that information was also suppressed. That apart, the other eyewitnesses to the occurrence, namely, PWs. 3 and 4, are also closely related to PW-1, they are interested witnesses and the evidence cannot be relied upon. Even though the occurrence has taken place in a crowded junction at Karuppayurani, no independent witness has been examined. According to him, motive in this case was not proved by the prosecution and they have not taken steps to examine the Parthiban, who have married A.1's sister, which is alleged to be motive for the present occurrence. Even though the occurrence has taken place in a crowded junction at Karuppayurani, no independent witness has been examined. According to him, motive in this case was not proved by the prosecution and they have not taken steps to examine the Parthiban, who have married A.1's sister, which is alleged to be motive for the present occurrence. The prosecution has also deliberately avoided examining the conductor and driver of the mini bus in which PW-1, was working as a ticker checker and according to PW-1, both of them have witnessed the said occurrence. 11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is lot of contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses, PW-1 has specifically stated that all the accused abused PW-1 by calling his caste name, but PW-3, did not state anything about it. Hence, the offence under SC/ST Act is not made out. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is a long delay in registering the F.I.R. and the same was sent to concerned Court next day at 11.30 a.m. i.e., on 19.08.2017, and the delay was not properly explained for, which causes serious doubt about the prosecution case. 12. Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.3 would submit that A.3's name has not been found place in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in the case. In the F.I.R. it is only stated that a known person from L. Poolangulam, but no identification parade has been conducted to identify A3. That apart, no overtact is attributed as against A.3. Since, A.3 is a friend of A.1, he has been falsely implicated in the case. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the evidence of PW-2, Police Constable cannot be believed for the simple reason that his Pocket Diary containing information regarding posting duty has not been marked and though he admitted that his dress contained blood strains, it was not recovered. That apart, PWs. 3 and 4 are related to PW-1 and they are interested witnesses and they cannot be believed. The delay in registering the F.I.R. and sending the same to the Court has to be seriously viewed and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 13. Mr. S. Ravi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.3 would contend that there are four eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The delay in registering the F.I.R. and sending the same to the Court has to be seriously viewed and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 13. Mr. S. Ravi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.3 would contend that there are four eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is an injured eyewitness and PW-2 is Police Constable, an independent witness, posted at the Karuppayurani bus stop to regulate the traffic and he has clearly stated that A.1 attacked PW-1 with bill-hook and caused injury in the left hand wrist and A.2 tried to attack him with bill-hook on his neck. However, he escaped. A.3 was also present in the scene of occurrence and A2 and A3 have accompanied A.1. The evidence of injured eyewitness clearly shows that due to a previous enmity all the accused attacked PW-1 and abused him, calling his caste name in the public view. The injured eyewitness belongs to Scheduled Caste community, knowing fully well that PW-1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, all the accused abused him touching his caste name and attacked him. Hence, all of them have committed offences under the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for the Government further submitted that there is no delay in registering the F.I.R. Immediately after the occurrence, PW-1 was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and on the intimation received, PW-10, Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the Hospital and after recording statement went to the Police Station and registered the F.I.R. without any delay, and a delay in sending F.I.R. to Court did not cause any prejudice to the accused. He further contended that the medical evidence has corroborated the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. Considering the above, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and the reasoned judgment of the trial Court requires no interference. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and the evidence produced. 16. There are four eyewitness to the occurrence, out of which, PW-1 is the injured eyewitness. The motive stated for the occurrence is that, earlier one Parthiban, who belonged to Scheduled Caste Community, has married the sister of A.1, who belongs to a Backward Community. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and the evidence produced. 16. There are four eyewitness to the occurrence, out of which, PW-1 is the injured eyewitness. The motive stated for the occurrence is that, earlier one Parthiban, who belonged to Scheduled Caste Community, has married the sister of A.1, who belongs to a Backward Community. Due to the same, there was an earlier occurrence, in which A.1 was implicated for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. According to PW-1, alleging that PW-1 along with one Soundrapandian helped said Parthiban for the marriage and in order to wreak vengeance, A.1 along with A.2 and A.3 attacked PW-1 with bill-hook with an intention to cause his death. However, he evaded the attack with his left hand as a result there was a fracture in the left wrist of PW-1. 17. The occurrence has taken place at 8.30 a.m. in a crowded bus stop in the Karuppayurani, which is in the outskirts of Madurai City. PW-2 is a traffic constable, who said to have regulating the traffic near the scene of occurrence. He is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. According to him, A.1 tried to attack PW-1 on his head, and when he evaded the attack, he sustained injury in his left wrist. Further, A.2 also tried to attack PW-1 but he escaped from the same. A.3 also came along with A.1 and A.2 with weapon. He immediately called 108 Ambulance and sent PW-1 to the hospital. Immediately, he informed the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Camp Office and also Karuppayurani Police Station at 8.50 a.m. According to him, PW-10, Sub-Inspector of Police, along with one Constable came to place of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW-2. Thereafter, at about 9.15 a.m. the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined him at the scene of occurrence and recorded his statement, both the statements given by PW-2 has not came into light. But it is the evidence of PW-10, that only on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospital, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1, thereafter, registered the F.I.R. Even though PW-2 has stated that his uniform has been strained with the blood stains, his uniform has not been recovered by the investigation officer, and his pocket diary was also not marked to establish that he was at duty in the scene of occurrence. 18. 18. So far as PW-3, is concerned, he is closely related to PW-1, he is an auto-driver and in his evidence he has not stated anything about the abusive words used by the accused and calling him by caste name. It is his specific evidence that, after sending PW-1 in 108 Ambulance to the Hospital, he followed him and reached the hospital in 10 minutes. Thereafter, at about 10.15, PW-15, Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the Hospital and at that time PW-1 was unconscious and hence, PW-15, recorded his statements for about 10 minutes and obtained his signature in the same. But that statement was also suppressed by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, PW-10, Sub-Inspector of Police after receipt of intimation from the Hospital, he reached there and recorded PW-1's statement, and registered F.I.R. at 12.00 noon and PW-15, Deputy Superintendent of Police commenced the investigation only after receipt of the F.I.R. from the Karuppayurani Police Station. 19. PW-4, is another eyewitness. He is also closely related to PW-1. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he came in a Mini Bus and got down from the Mini Bus at Karuppayurani bus stop, near scene of occurrence. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PWs. 3 to 6 came together in Mini Bus at the time of occurrence and got down from the bus. But, according to PWs. 5 and 6, they did not know anything about the occurrence and they have seen PW-1 after the occurrence with injuries. Hence, it is doubtful that PWs. 3 and 4, who came along with PWs. 5 and 6, have seen the occurrence. Hence, the presence of PWs. 3 and 4 is doubtful and the inconsistency in the evidence of PWs. 3 to 6 will clearly create a doubt about the prosecution case. 20. Insofar as the motive is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that PW-1 being a close relative of Parthiban helped him to get married A.1's sister and in order to wreak vengeance, A.1 attacked PW-1. However, to establish the same, the said Parthiban was not examined. 3 to 6 will clearly create a doubt about the prosecution case. 20. Insofar as the motive is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that PW-1 being a close relative of Parthiban helped him to get married A.1's sister and in order to wreak vengeance, A.1 attacked PW-1. However, to establish the same, the said Parthiban was not examined. Even though the prosecution has examined PW-11, a Sub-Inspector of Police in Silaiman Police Station regarding registration of F.I.R. against A1 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is in no way establish that PW-1 is a relative of Parthiban and he had helped Parthiban, apart from that no other witness spoke about the motive. Hence, the motive was also not proved by the prosecution. It is true that, when there is eyewitness account of the occurrence, proving motive may not fatal for prosecution, provided the eye-witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, now, in the instant case, it is not so. 21. So far as the delay in filing the F.I.R. is concerned, the occurrence took place at 8.30 a.m. on 18.08.2017, but, the F.I.R. was registered at 12.00 noon, after 3½ hours. In the meantime, two other earlier statements given by PW-2 and PW-3, have been suppressed by the prosecution. That apart, after registering the F.I.R. at 12.00 noon, it has reached the Court only on the next day at 11.30 a.m. with a delay of 24 hours. The delay is not properly explained by the prosecution. 22. It is true that mere delay in lodging the First Information Report by itself is not fatal to the prosecution. However, the delay in registering the F.I.R. coupled with the delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court, has to be viewed with the fact that, there was suppression of two earliest information received by the police from PWs. 2 and 3, there is a chance of embellishment and attempt to build up a different case, and to bring in more persons in the crime. That apart, the prosecution did not give a plausible explanation for the delay in registering the F.I.R. and also sending the same to the Court. Considering all these circumstances cumulatively, cast a serious doubt about the prosecution version. 23. That apart, the prosecution did not give a plausible explanation for the delay in registering the F.I.R. and also sending the same to the Court. Considering all these circumstances cumulatively, cast a serious doubt about the prosecution version. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 has held that delay in lodging the First Information Report will result in embellishment and there is a possibility of introduction of the coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. The relevant portion reads as follows: “First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets benefit of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.” 24. In Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delayed dispatch of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate throw serious doubt on the prosecution case, which is followed in Rajeevan vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355 and it has been held as follows: “15. In Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delayed dispatch of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate throw serious doubt on the prosecution case, which is followed in Rajeevan vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355 and it has been held as follows: “15. This Court in Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 , while deciding a case which involves a question of delayed dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate, cautioned that such delay would throw serious doubt on the prosecution case, whereas in Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551, it was reminded by this Court that: (SCC p. 382, Para 24) “The forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest dispatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word ‘forthwith’ occurring in Section 157 Cr.P.C. which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is very obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159 Cr.P.C. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation.” 25. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Ratan Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 630 , held as follows: “9. Thus, not only was there a delay in filing the F.I.R. (which remained unexplained) which was taken as the basis of the investigation in this case, but also there was a wilful suppression of the actual first information received by the police. These factors together cast grave doubts on the credibility of the prosecution version and lead us to the conclusion that there has been an attempt to build up a different case for the prosecution and bring in as many persons as accused as possible.” Considering those principles, the unexplained delay in registering the F.I.R. and dispatching the same to the concerned Court, and suppressing two earliest statements given by PWs. 2 and 3 cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case, and there was a possibility of improvement in the prosecution case and introduction of new version of deliberation and consultation. 26. 2 and 3 cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case, and there was a possibility of improvement in the prosecution case and introduction of new version of deliberation and consultation. 26. Considering all those circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court below without considering those aspects has convicted the accused on believing the eyewitness. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 27. In the result, Crl. Appeal (MD) Nos.234, 262 and 507 of 2018 are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A.1 to A.3, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, PCR, Madurai, in Spl. S.C. No. 77 of 2017, by the judgment dated 18.04.2018, are hereby set aside. The appellants/A.1 to A.3 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Fine amounts, if any, paid by the appellants/A.1 to A.3 shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds executed by them also shall stand cancelled.