JUDGMENT : R.HEMALATHA, J. The appellant Madesh, aged 30 years, was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 in S.C. No.126/2014 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Banu and the appellant Madesh were partners in a live in relationship. While the appellant belongs to Kutlampatti Jarugu Village, Chittor District, Andhrapradesh, the deceased belonged to Karunkattu Village, Pandaseemanur, Krishnagiri District. Both of them had returned from Jarugu Village to the victim's Karunkattu Village, Pandaseemanur, and were working as labourers in a brick kiln at Maramanapalli Village, belonging to one Ramachandran (P.W.6). 3. On 26.11.2013, the appellant Madesh had received his weekly wages of Rs.400/- and had gone to bazaar to purchase provisions for his family. According to prosecution he returned at 8 P.M. and took Banu to Muthumooper land near the Brick Kiln and both of them entered into an altercation which ended up in appellant physically attacking the victim with a stone. Hearing her cries at about 9 P.M., Ramesh (P.W.2), Devaraj (P.W3) and Subramani (P.W.13) rushed to the place where they found Madesh with a stone and Banu lying dead with no clothes on her top. The appellant had reportedly escaped from the scene and information was passed on to the deceased Banu's parents Ramalingam (P.W.1) and Chandira (P.W.8). The parents of the deceased Banu went to the place of occurrence at about 9.45 P.M. and found their daughter dead with visible injuries on her body. 4. P.W.1 gave a police complaint (Ex.P1) on 27.11.2013 at 8 a.m. at Bargur Police Station. FIR (Ex.P9) in Bargur Police Station Crime No.570 of 2013 was registered by Thiru.Ravichandran (since deceased), Special Sub Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station. 5. Thiru. Elango (P.W.14), the Inspector of Police, in charge of Bargur Police Station, took up investigation in Cr. No.570 of 2013, visited the scene of offence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of witnesses Selvaraj (P.W.9) and Manivannan (not examined) and a rough sketch (Ex.P5). Subsequently, P.W.14 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of five panchayatdhars. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P6. No.570 of 2013, visited the scene of offence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of witnesses Selvaraj (P.W.9) and Manivannan (not examined) and a rough sketch (Ex.P5). Subsequently, P.W.14 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of five panchayatdhars. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P6. The body was later sent to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri for autopsy. 6. Dr. Selvaraj (P.W.12) performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries. External Injuries (1) Lacerated teared injury 2 x cm found on the right sede of face (cheek). (2) Lacerated teared injury 2 x 2 cm (chin) (3) On the right side of upper stomach portion 7 x 3 cm lacerated teared injury. (4) On the right side of right chest lung portion 2 x 2 cm teared injury. (5) On the back side multiple scratches. (6) Right side of leg - 2 scratched injuries. Internal Injuries (1) Lower ribs fractured. (2) Ribs was in tact. (3) 200 ml of fluid blood was found in Thoracic cavity. (4) teared wound was found in the right side lung. (5) Left side lung was normal (6) Heart empty chest found to be normal. Stomach found empty. 100 ml of blood was found in the abdominal cavity and in the liver 2 or 3 teared wounds were found. Spleen and urinary bladder was found normal. Uterus was found empty. Head Skull and brain was found normal. 7. The doctor (P.W.12) sent the visceral organs for chemical examination. No alcohol or poison was detected in any of the internal organs as per the forensic report (Ex.P11). Therefore, Dr. Selvaraj (P.W.12) opined that the death was due to injuries to 'major vital organs liver and lung'. 8. A maron colour inskirt (M.O.4) and an orange saree (M.O.5) worn by the deceased was handed over to the Investigating Officer by Thiru V. Rajaram (P.W.11), the then Head Constable of Police, Bargur Police Station, along with a report. 9. Since P.W.14 was transferred, Thiru. Ramamoorthy (P.W.15), Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, took up further investigation and arrested the accused Madesh on 30.11.2013 at 2.30 P.M. near Chinnamalaipadi road, Krishnagiri His police confession was recorded in the presence of Selvaraj, Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) and his assistant Manivannan (not examined). 9. Since P.W.14 was transferred, Thiru. Ramamoorthy (P.W.15), Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, took up further investigation and arrested the accused Madesh on 30.11.2013 at 2.30 P.M. near Chinnamalaipadi road, Krishnagiri His police confession was recorded in the presence of Selvaraj, Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) and his assistant Manivannan (not examined). Based on his confession, a blood stained stone (M.O.1), a sky blue blouse of the deceased (M.O.2) and a red colour shirt (M.O.3) of the accused were recovered near a rock, Muthumoopar land, under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of same witnesses. Thereafter, M.O.1 to M.O.5 were sent to the Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri, under Form 95 (Ex.P8) on 30.11.2013. Ex.P12, Biological report concluded that the blood found on the inskirt (M.O.4) and saree (M.O.5) were human blood and the result of grouping was inconclusive in both these objects. As regards the stone M.O.1 & M.O.3, it was reported as "disintegrated". 10. P.W.15 recorded the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.PC. Ramesh (P.W.2), Devaraj (P.W3) and Subramani (P.W.13) were examined by the Judicial Magistrate, Anti Land grabbing Court, Krishnagiri, under Section 164 Cr.PC. The statements were marked as Ex.P10 (series). In the meanwhile, since P.W.13 got transferred, Thiru. Natarajan (P.W.16) verified the evidences recorded by P.W.15 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in PRC No.10 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri, who in turn committed the case to the court of sessions. 11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked 12 exhibit and 5 Material Objects. 12. The case of the prosecution mainly relies on eye witnesses accounts of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13 and also the circumstantial evidence including the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased. 13. Mr. B. Manoharan, learned counsel for the appellant raised serious doubts as to the inordinate delay in lodging a police complaint (Ex.P1) by P.W.1, the father of the victim. His another contention is that though the three main eye witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13 were allegedly present in the scene of crime as soon as they heard the cries of the deceased, only P.W.2 has claimed that he saw the accused carrying a stone while P.W.3 and P.W.13 were not sure about the identity of the accused. His another contention is that though the three main eye witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13 were allegedly present in the scene of crime as soon as they heard the cries of the deceased, only P.W.2 has claimed that he saw the accused carrying a stone while P.W.3 and P.W.13 were not sure about the identity of the accused. The learned counsel also highlighted the evidence of the doctor P.W.12, who in his cross examination had stated that none of the injuries on the body of the deceased could have caused instant death and it would take 4 to 5 hours for the injuries to become fatal if proper treatment is not given. He also pointed out that both P.W.1 and P.W.8 who were the parents of the deceased left the corpse of their own daughter unattended overnight and also that they had deposed about her promiscuous nature due to which frequent quarrels erupted between the couple. 14. Per contra, Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that there was a solid motive for the appellant to eliminate his live in partner due to her suspected fidelity and also that there were eye witnesses who were able to pinpoint the guilt of the appellant having seen him in the scene of occurrence as soon as the murder took place. 15. The victim is a young lady who was reportedly in a live in relationship with the appellant Madesh. Almost all the close relatives who deposed as prosecution witnesses were unison in stating one fact that the victim did not believe in a committed relationship and this was one of the reasons for the frequent quarrel between the victim and the accused. Infact, all the prosecution witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.8) were close relatives and other witnesses P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.13 had also deposed that the frequent quarrel was one of the reasons for the couple to return from Jarugu Village, Andhrapradesh, just a couple of months before. The prosecution has attempted to put up a version according to which the accused was always suspicious of the victim's fidelity and hence had a motive to kill her. The prosecution has attempted to put up a version according to which the accused was always suspicious of the victim's fidelity and hence had a motive to kill her. This theory is not very convincing because it is not only the accused but also the other relatives including the victim's parents who were aware of the amorous activities of the victim and the accused desired that she would turn a new leaf atleast after coming out of Jarugu Village. It is to be noted that they were never parted ways despite wrangling. 16. It is also intriguing that though the victim was found dead on 26.11.2013 at about 9 P.M. and her parents P.W.1 and P.W.8 were informed immediately, and they also went to see their daughter's body at about 10 P.M., they did not bother to inform the police immediately. Not only the parents, but also the close relatives did nothing and behaved as if the dead person was an alien and they have nothing to do with the victim. It was not as though they did not have any mode of communication or conveyance. P.W.2 had a two wheeler. In fact, P.W.2 is the first cousin of the deceased and he claims to have heard the screams of the victim and the accused standing nearby with a stone in the hand. It was P.W.2 who had accompanied P.W.1 to the Police Station the next day morning for making a complaint. In fact, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13 along with P.W.1 and P.W.8 after seeing the dead body reportedly approached the owner of the Brick Kiln one Ramachandran (P.W.6), who had asked them to go to the Police Station. This version has been categorically denied by the Brick Kiln owner P.W.6 and his son Kaliyappan (P.W.7) and according to them they were informed about the incident only the next day morning at 4 a.m. They reportedly had a four wheeler and also a phone connection. P.W.13 has stated in his deposition that the father of the victim came to the scene of occurrence only the next day morning at about 8 a.m. He has also added that the parents of the deceased did not come to the spot on the night when the incident occurred. On the contrary, P.W.1 and P.W.8 (parents of the deceased) claimed to have visited the scene of occurrence on the same night. On the contrary, P.W.1 and P.W.8 (parents of the deceased) claimed to have visited the scene of occurrence on the same night. Such contradictory version creates doubt as to whether the occurrence took place at the time, date and place as claimed by the prosecution. Had the parents of the deceased visited the scene of occurrence on 26.11.2013 itself, they would not have left the body of their own daughter unattended the whole night and waited till the next day morning to lodge a police complaint. 17. Even amongst the eye witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.13, there are serious contradictions as to whether the accused was seen at the time when all the three of them reportedly went to the spot after hearing the cries of the victim. P.W.3 in fact has stated that since it was dark he could see only a shadow and he was not sure whether it was the accused. P.W.13, in the evidence, had clearly stated that the accused was not seen in the scene of occurrence when he went there after hearing the screams of the deceased. P.W.2 and P.W.13 have also stated that when they reached the scene of occurrence they found the victim already dead. It is strange that they have claimed they responded to the scream of the victim but they found the victim already dead. In this context, the cross examination of the doctor (P.W.12) assumes significance because he had stated that the injuries seen on the body of the victim could not have caused instant death and death due to such injuries takes 5 to 6 hours to cause death if left untreated. Therefore, as already stated the scene of occurrence, date and time of occurrence are all highly doubtful and it can be concluded that the investigation has been handled in an unprofessional manner. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In the result, (i) This Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Krishnagir, in S.C.No.126 of 2014, dated 22.09.2016, is set aside. (iii) The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case. (iv) Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.