JUDGMENT : V. Bharathidasan, J. Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13.08.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.117 of 2017, on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.117 of 2017, on the file of the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and they stood charged and tried for the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 341 of I.P.C. 2. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018, has convicted the appellants herein for the above said offences and imposed the sentences, thus: Rank of the Accused Charge Conviction Accused No.1 U/s. 302 of I.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s. 341 of I.P.C. To undergo one month simple imprisonment. Accused No.2 U/s. 302 of I.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s. 341 of I.P.C. To undergo one month simple imprisonment. Accused No.3 U/s. 302 of I.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s. 341 of I.P.C. To undergo one month simple imprisonment. Now, challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/A1 to A3. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case one Arumugam, is the father of P.W.1. Due to a land dispute, on 27.09.2015, at about 7.00 a.m, while the deceased was going for his morning walk along with his son Vignesh (P.W.1) behind C.S.I Church at Tuticorin, all the three accused came in a motor cycle and A1, Rajendran, attacked the deceased with billhook in his head and other two unknown accused indiscriminately attacked him with sickle and caused serious injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 returned back to home and informed his cousins P.Ws.4 and 5. Thereafter, they took the deceased in a 108 Ambulance and admitted him in the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, wherein he succumbed to injuries on 29.09.2015, at 9.30 a.m. P.W.1 appeared before the respondent police station and filed a complaint/Ex.P1. Immediately, P.W.1 returned back to home and informed his cousins P.Ws.4 and 5. Thereafter, they took the deceased in a 108 Ambulance and admitted him in the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, wherein he succumbed to injuries on 29.09.2015, at 9.30 a.m. P.W.1 appeared before the respondent police station and filed a complaint/Ex.P1. Based on that, an F.I.R. has been registered for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C., on 27.09.2015 at 10.30 hrs. 4. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police in the respondent police station, on receipt of F.I.R., commenced the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch- Ex.P26 and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 29.09.2015, after receipt of death intimation from the hospital, P.W.17 went to the Hospital, where he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of witnesses from 11.30 to 13.30 hrs. and recorded their statement, and filed an Alteration Report - Ex.P28 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of I.P.C. On the same day, he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. On such arrest, A1, voluntarily come forward to give a confession. Based on the admissible portion of the confession, P.W.17 recovered a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 69A 3834, and also two billhooks – M.Os.1 and 2 and remanded them to judicial custody. On 27.10.2015, A3 in this case viz., Nimal @ Kakkaiyan appeared before the Village Administrative Officer / P.W.11 and given an extra judicial confession, and P.W.11, produced him before P.W.17, and he arrested him. On such arrest, A3, voluntarily given a confession and based on the admissible portion of his confession, P.W.17, recovered sickle and a knife, M.Os.3 and 4 and remanded him to judicial custody. 5. In the mean time, P.W.8, the Doctor working in the Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and given a Postmortem Report – Ex.P3, wherein, he noted the following injuries: “Appearance found at the postmortem:- Moderately nourished body of a male. Finger and toe nails are pale. Hospital bandage seen over the head, right side of chest, right hand and back. The following ante mortem injuries were noted in the body:- 1. A sutured wound of length 10cms seen in the left paritetal region. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 10cms X 1cm X bone deep. Finger and toe nails are pale. Hospital bandage seen over the head, right side of chest, right hand and back. The following ante mortem injuries were noted in the body:- 1. A sutured wound of length 10cms seen in the left paritetal region. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 10cms X 1cm X bone deep. 2. A sutured wound of length 8cms seen in the right occipital region. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 8cms X 1cm X bone deep. 3. A sutured wound of length 10cms seen in the right temporal region. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 10 cms X 1cm X bone deep. 4. A sutured wound of length 2cms seen in the right ear. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 2cms X 1cm X muscle deep. 5. A sutured wound of length 2cms seeen 1 cm above the injury no.4. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 2cms X 1cm X muscle deep. 6. A sutured wound of length 8cms seen in the back of right chest. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 8cms X 1cm X bone deep. 7. A sutured wound of length 2.5cms seen in the back of abdomen. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 2.5cms X 0.5cm X 1.5cm. 8. A sutured wound of length 3cms seen in the back of right upper abdomen. On removal of sutures, a stab injury of size 3cms X 1cm X abdominal cavity deep. 9. A sutured wound of length 10cms seen 4cms below the injury no.8. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 10cms X 1cms X abdominal cavity deep. 10. A sutured wound of length 3cms seen in the left eyebrow. On removal of sutures, cut injury of size 3cms X 1cm X bone deep. 11. A sutured wound of length 2cms seen in the lateral aspect of right chest (surgical procedure). 12. A sutured wound of length 2cms seen 4cms below the injury no.11.(surgical procedure). On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura:- Scalp contusion size 10cms X 5cms seen in the left parietal region. Another scalp contusion of size 5cms X 4cms seen in the right temporal region. A linear cut of length 7cms seen in the left parietal bone. Another linear cut of length 8cms seen in the right temporal bone. On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura:- Scalp contusion size 10cms X 5cms seen in the left parietal region. Another scalp contusion of size 5cms X 4cms seen in the right temporal region. A linear cut of length 7cms seen in the left parietal bone. Another linear cut of length 8cms seen in the right temporal bone. Sub arachnoid haemorrhage seen over the right parietal, temporal and occipital lobes. Other findings:- Abdominal cavity-contained about 750 ml of clotted and fluid blood. Pleural cavity-contained 10ml of blood. Pericardium-contained 10ml of straw colored fluid. Heart-normal and chambers empty. Coronaries-patent. Larnyx and Trachea-normal. Hyoid bone-intact. Liver-stab injury noted in the right lobe corresponding to the injury no.8. Lungs, spllen and kidneys-normal and cut section pale. Stomachempty, nil specific smell, mucosa-pale. Small intestine-empty, nil specific smell, mucosa-pale. Bladder-empty. Brain-normal and cut section normal. External genitals-normal. Note:- Blood preserved for biological analysis.” and he opined that the deceased appeared to have died of complications of multiple cut and stab injuries and death would have occurred 4 – 8 hrs. prior to the autopsy. 6. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police continued the investigation and recorded the statement of the Doctor and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report. 7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused as mentioned above. However, the appellants/accused have denied the same. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined as many as 17 witnesses, marked 33 documents and also produced 17 material objects. 8. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1, is the son of the deceased. According to him, on 27.09.2015, at about 7.00 a.m., while the deceased and P.W.1 walking behind C.S.I. Church, Tuticorin, all the three accused came in a motorcycle and attacked the deceased indiscriminately and ran away from the scene of occurrence. Then, he was taken to the Government Hospital and the Police came to the Hospital, where they recorded his statement and obtained the signature from him. 9. P.W.2, is running a fruit stall near the scene of occurrence, turned hostile. P.W.3 is running a tea stall and he also turned hostile. Then, he was taken to the Government Hospital and the Police came to the Hospital, where they recorded his statement and obtained the signature from him. 9. P.W.2, is running a fruit stall near the scene of occurrence, turned hostile. P.W.3 is running a tea stall and he also turned hostile. P.W.4 is the relative of P.W.1, according to him, P.W.1 informed him that his father was attacked, immediately, he rushed to the scene of occurrence, and took the injured person in the motorcycle, on the way, and then in a 108 ambulance and admitted the injured in the hospital. 10. P.W.5, spoke about the motive for the occurrence. According to him, there was a land dispute between A1 and the deceased, and P.W.1 informed him that his father was attacked, then he along with P.W.4, took the injured to the Hospital. 11. P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence has no substance. P.W.7 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar – Ex.P2. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and given a Postmortem Certificate – Ex.P3. 12. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who has given the death information to the Police. P.W.10 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted a Test Identification Parade, wherein P.W.1 identified A2 and A3. P.W.11 is the Village Administrative Officer, before whom A3 said to have appeared and given an extra judicial confession. However, he turned hostile. 13. P.W.12 is the Village Assistant, a witness to the confession statement of A1 and A2, he has also turned hostile. P.W.13 is the Head Constable, he handed over the F.I.R., as well as the Inquest Report to the Judicial Magistrate Court, and identified the body of the deeased. P.W.14 is a Assistant Director, working in the Forensic Lab, Tirunelveli, and he examined the bloodstained materials and given a report Ex.P.18. 14. P.W.15 is the Doctor, who admitted the deceased in the hospital at about 7.25 a.m., on 27.09.2015, and he issued the Accident Register Ex.P22. According to him, P.W.1 took the deceased to the Hospital and told him that unknown persons have attacked him near Paulpandi Nagar. 15. P.W.16 is the Head Constable and he identified the body for postmortem. P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also filed the final report. 16. 15. P.W.16 is the Head Constable and he identified the body for postmortem. P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also filed the final report. 16. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the same as false and they have not examined any witnesses and not marked any documents. 17. Considering all those materials, the trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them as stated Supra. Now, challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this criminal appeal. 18. Pending appeal, A2 died, on 04.01.2021, and the Death Certificate was produced before this Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instruction confirmed the death of A2. In the said circumstances, the appeal against A2, is dismissed as abated. 19. Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the first appellant/A1, would contend that it is a clear case of false implication of the accused. According to P.W.1, the author of F.I.R., A1 and A2, and one unknown accused have attacked his father behind C.S.I. Church, Tuticorin. Subsequently, his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he has implicated one Parisuthakumar stating that he along with A1 and A2 attacked the deceased, based on his statement, Parisuthakumar was added as 3rd accused. Subsequently, the said Parisuthakumar name was deleted, and the present A3, viz., Nimal @ Kakkaiyan, has been implicated as A3, based on the extra judicial confession said to have given by Nimal @ Kakkaiyan, before the Village Administrative Officer/P.W.11. However, P.W.11 turned hostile and the alleged extra judicial confession was also not marked before the Court, and it is not known how the name of Parisuthakumar has been deleted and Nimal @ Kakkaiyan has been implicated as an accused. That apart, the learned Senior counsel further submitted that, in the chief - examination of P.W.1, he has not accounted the overt act committed by each accused. The learned Senior counsel, further submitted that, P.W.15, the Doctor, admitted the injured in the Hospital and issued the Accident Register - Ex.P22, wherein P.W.1 stated that three unknown persons attacked the deceased near Paulpandi Nagar. The learned Senior counsel, further submitted that, P.W.15, the Doctor, admitted the injured in the Hospital and issued the Accident Register - Ex.P22, wherein P.W.1 stated that three unknown persons attacked the deceased near Paulpandi Nagar. However, from the perusal of the F.I.R., the Rough Sketch and the evidence of P.W.17, the Investigating Officer, it is seen that the occurrence said to have taken place in some other place not at Paulpandi Nagar, and the scene of occurrence also changed. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even though the occurrence took place in the residential area, except the interested witness P.W.1, there is no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that even though the F.I.R has been registered on 27.09.2015, at about 10.30 a.m., the F.I.R. reached the Court only on the next day at about 10.30 a.m. and the delay was not properly explained by the prosecution, which creates a clear doubt that there is a false implication of the accused. 20. Heard Mr.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the third appellant/A3, the learned counsel reiterates the arguments of the learned Senior counsel. 21. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that, P.W.1, is the son of the deceased and he is an eyewitness to the occurrence. The occurrence took place in the early morning at about 7.00 a.m., while the deceased walking along with P.W.1. P.W.1 has clearly stated that all the accused came in a two wheeler and attacked the deceased indiscriminately and caused serious injuries, subsequently, the deceased succumbed to injuries. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that he only took the deceased to the Hospital and the Accident Register - Ex.P22 also supported the same. He further submitted that the medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. 22. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the complaint has been filed by P.W.1 without any delay. According to P.W. 1, A1 is a known person and the other two persons are unknown to him. In the above circumstances, a Test Identification Parade was conducted by P.W. 10, Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, wherein, P.W.1, clearly identified the accused Nos.2 and 3. According to P.W. 1, A1 is a known person and the other two persons are unknown to him. In the above circumstances, a Test Identification Parade was conducted by P.W. 10, Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam, wherein, P.W.1, clearly identified the accused Nos.2 and 3. The trial Court, considering all those materials, rightly convicted the accused and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 24. Originally the F.I.R. was registered against the known accused A1 and two unknown accused, subsequently, based on the statement of P.W.1, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., one Selvaraj, and one Parisutha kumar have been implicated as A2 and A3. Therefore, Ex.P28 - Alteration Report, was filed by P.W.17 to that effect, altering the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and implicating the said Parisuthakumar as A3. P.W.17 in his evidence has clearly stated that, according to P.W.1, Parisuthakumar, attacked the deceased with the knife in his hip. However, subsequently the said Parisuthakumar name was deleted, it is not known how the name of Parisuthakumar has been deleted from the array of accused, absolutely, there is no material available on record for that, and P.W.17, was also not able to explain it. That apart, in his place, one Nimal @ Kakayan, has been implicated as A3, based on the extra judicial confession said to have been given by him before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.11. But, P.W.11 turned hostile, and that extra judicial confession was also not marked before the Court. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel, admittedly, there is no material available on record to show how the name of Parissuthakumar has been deleted and Nimal @ Kakeyan has been implicated in this case, which clearly creates a doubt and there is likely a false implication of the accused. 25. That apart, P.W.1 has clearly stated that the occurrence has taken place in Paulpandi Nagar, behind one C.S.I.Church. However, from the perusal of Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch – Ex.P26, it could be seen that, the occurrence took place near Millerpuram Housing Board and Paulpandi Nagar is situated far away from the scene of occurrence. 25. That apart, P.W.1 has clearly stated that the occurrence has taken place in Paulpandi Nagar, behind one C.S.I.Church. However, from the perusal of Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch – Ex.P26, it could be seen that, the occurrence took place near Millerpuram Housing Board and Paulpandi Nagar is situated far away from the scene of occurrence. Even though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that Paulpandi Nagar is a large area, and the occurrence took place only in Paulpandi Nagar Main Road, but that contention is not supported by any material. 26. So far as registration of F.I.R. is concerned, P.W.1, has clearly stated that he has given a statement before the police in the Hospital, which has been reduced into writing and the police got his signature in it. But, P.W. 17, the Investigating Officer has stated that P.W.1, has written the complaint and handed over it in the Police Station. Based on that complaint, F.I.R. has been registered, the concerned person, who has registered the F.I.R., was not examined by the prosecution, and there is no plausible reason for non-examination of the person, who has registered the F.I.R. Apart from that, even though the F.I.R. said to have been registered at about 10.30 a.m., on 27.09.2015, it reaches the Judicial Magistrate Court, only on the next day at 10.30 a.m. and there is no explanation for the delay of 24 hours in sending the F.I.R. to the Court which situated very nearby to the police station. The unexplained delay also created a doubt about the prosecution case. 27. Considering all these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellants 1 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. 28. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.117 of 2017 is set aside and the appellants 1 and 3 / Accused Nos.1 and 3 are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The fine amount if any paid by the appellants 1 and 3/A1 and A3 is to be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed by the appellants stand terminated/cancelled.