JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Sessions (Sub Judge) Court, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.84 of 2012, dated 14.10.2015, convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC., and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the appellant and Chidambaram (PW-1). On 09.12.2011, at about 9.00 pm., when the said Chidambaram (PW-1) walking towards his house and right in front of the house of one Subramanian (PW-3) at Pudupalli Ellai Road, the appellant is said to have waylaid PW-1 and attacked him with aruval (MO.1) on his head, hands and right thigh and caused him grievous injuries. 3. PW-2, who is the brother of PW-1 saw PW-1 lying in a pool of blood with serious injuries. He immediately made arrangements to secure 108 Ambulance and PW-1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Nagapattianm. PW-1 was treated by PW-7 and through him the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P-5. 4. PW-2 gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Vettaikaraniruppu Police Station on 10.12.2011 at 2.00 am. This complaint was marked as Ex.P-1. Based on the complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.41 of 2011, for offense under Section 341 and 307 IPC. The FIR was marked as Ex.P-6. 5. The investigation was taken up by PW-8 and he went to the scene of crime and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P-7) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P-8). The Investigation Officer also recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 (3) Cr.PC. The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2011 at about 3.00 pm., and based on his confession, the weapon (M.O.1) was recovered. The arrest and recovery was attested by PW-5. The Investigation Officer thereafter received the reports and ultimately, laid the final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, on completion of investigation. 6. The Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, issued copies to the appellant under Section 207 Cr.PC., and committed the case under Section 209 Cr.PC., and the case was made over to the Court below. 7. The Court below framed the charges against the appellant for offense under Section 341 and 307 IPC. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-8 and marked exhibits P-1 to P-10 and identified and marked M.O.1. 7. The Court below framed the charges against the appellant for offense under Section 341 and 307 IPC. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-8 and marked exhibits P-1 to P-10 and identified and marked M.O.1. The incriminating evidence that was collected in the course of trial was put to the appellant under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC.. and he denied the same as false. 8. The Court below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts for offense under Section 307 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 341 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed before this Court. 9. Heard Mr.D.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 10. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution had concealed the very genesis of the case. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submission, brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of PW-7. It was submitted that PW-7 was the doctor, who gave treatment to PW-1 at the earliest point of time after the incident and PW-1 had clearly stated before PW-7 that he was attacked by two known persons with aruval and wooden log. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to pointing out that PW-1 was very much conscious when he was treated by PW-7. Reference was also made to Ex.P-5, which is the Accident Register that was marked through PW-7. Even in the Accident Register, reference has been made to the fact that two known persons had attacked PW-1 with aruval and wooden log. The following injuries have also been recorded in the Accident Register. (1) Laceration over (Lt) hand 7x4x3cm with tendon expressed. (2) Laceration over scalp – (Lt) Frontal area – 8x2x2cm. (3) Laceration over (Lt) forearm 8x5x2 cm (4) Laceration on (Rt) forearm – 6x4x3cm (5) Laceration over (Rt) thigh 3x3x1cm 11. In the present case, PW-1 is the injured witness and PW-3 and PW-4 were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses. PW-3 and PW-4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. (3) Laceration over (Lt) forearm 8x5x2 cm (4) Laceration on (Rt) forearm – 6x4x3cm (5) Laceration over (Rt) thigh 3x3x1cm 11. In the present case, PW-1 is the injured witness and PW-3 and PW-4 were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses. PW-3 and PW-4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the only other evidence that can be relied upon, is the evidence of PW-1. 12. PW-1 in his evidence has stated as if, it was only the appellant who had attacked him with aruval (MO.1). During cross examination, his attention was drawn to the Accident Register, where he has mentioned that he was attacked by two known persons with aruval and wooden log. PW-1 states that he did not made any such statement to the doctor. 13. The doctor viz., PW-7 had prepared the Accident Register marked as Ex.P-5 at about 10.30 pm. It is clear from the evidence of PW-7 read along with Ex.P-5 that PW-1 was very much conscious and he was capable of giving statement. However, the complaint has been given by the brother of PW-1 viz., Madavan (PW-2). This witness did not see the incident and even as per the complaint, PW-2 states that he was informed about this incident by PW-3 and PW-3 did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is not known as to why the statement was not taken from PW-1 and on the other hand, the statement was taken from PW-2, who did not even see the incident. In the result, the very complaint based on which the law was set in motion becomes very shaky. 14. There is yet another issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P-2, which is the admissible portion of the confession that was recorded from the appellant. For proper appreciation, the admissible portion that was marked by the Court below is extracted hereunder: OTHER LANGUAGE 15. The learned counsel submitted that PW-5 was the witness, who was examined in order to prove the arrest and recovery from the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below had marked inadmissible portions and hence, the very recovery cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that MO.1 had blood stains even as per the evidence of PW-5. The learned counsel submitted that PW-5 was the witness, who was examined in order to prove the arrest and recovery from the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the Court below had marked inadmissible portions and hence, the very recovery cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that MO.1 had blood stains even as per the evidence of PW-5. However, the weapon was not even sent for getting the serological report to ascertain the blood group that was contained in the weapon. 16. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, carves out an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The privy counsel in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King-Emperor reported in AIR 1947, privy counsel 67 has dealt with the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It has been held that the “fact discovered” referred in the Section will relate to the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused regarding the same. Many times, it is misconstrued that the weapon that is recovered is the “fact discovered” and such an understanding of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is fallacious. The same has been explained in the said judgment by Justice John Beaumont, J., in very clear terms and this judgment has been followed both by the Apex Court and all the High Courts till now. 17. The admissible portion under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was marked as Ex.P-2, has been extracted supra. The Court below failed to note the fact that has also been marked as admissible portion. This portion which was marked is clearly inadmissible since it is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The only admissible portion under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE 18. By applying the principles of Pulukuri Kottaya case, the knowledge of the accused that MO.1 is available on the back side of his house in the thatched shed, is an admissible portion. Similarly, the object that was produced viz., aruval (MO.1) is admissible. 19. In the instant case, the weapon that was used to attack PW-1 was not even shown to the doctor, who was examined as PW-7. Similarly, the object that was produced viz., aruval (MO.1) is admissible. 19. In the instant case, the weapon that was used to attack PW-1 was not even shown to the doctor, who was examined as PW-7. Whereas, during the cross examination of PW-7, the defence has elicited from the doctor that injury no.2 is capable of being caused when a person is hit by a wooden log. This fact becomes significant since the earliest statement made by PW-1 before the doctor was that he was attacked by two known persons with aruval and wooden log. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has suppressed the very genesis of the case. The manner in which PW-1 had described the incident before PW-7 when he was given treatment, is completely different from what PW-1 had stated before the Court. That apart, PW-1 did not even give a statement to the police and the complaint itself was given by PW-2, who had not even seen the incident. It is clear that PW-1 was very much conscious even as per the evidence of PW-7. Therefore, the right person from whom the statement ought to have been recorded by the police is PW-1. The Court below failed to take note of this crucial fact and went ahead to convict and sentence the appellant only based on the evidence of PW-1. 20. The benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the appellant due to the lapses that have been pointed out supra. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Court below and acquit the appellant from the charge under Section 307 IPC. 21. In the result, the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Sessions (Sub Judge) Court, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.84 of 2012, dated 14.10.2015, is hereby set aside and this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant was enlarged on bail by order dated 29.06.2016, passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.A.No.745 of 2015. In view of the same, the bail bond shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.