JUDGMENT : C.KUMARAPPAN, J. The instant Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction passed against the first accused in S.C. No. 14 of 2018, dated 27.09.2021, by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. 2. In the said Sessions Case, there were two accused, viz., Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, and Palanisamy. As against the second accused/Mr.Palanisamy, the Trial Court acquitted him from all charges. Thus, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/first accused. 3. According to the prosecution, the appellant/first accused, qua Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, had two wives, viz., Mariammal and Amutha. The second wife, Amutha was allegedly murdered by the first accused. He has got three children through the deceased Amutha. Among them PW1 and PW2 are his daughter and son respectively. Besides them, they also have another daughter by name Manju. The second accused is also the son of the first accused, through his first wife, viz., Mariammal. The prosecution further states that after the demise of his first wife, Mariammal, the second accused requested the first accused to support him. In order to support the second accused, the first accused requested his second wife, deceased/Amudha, to give certain property to the second accused, which was strongly objected by her. 3.1. In furtherance thereof, on 31.07.2017 at 8.45 a.m., the first accused attacked the deceased with a wooden log, and the said occurrence was witnessed by his daughter PW1/Revathi and PW2/Balaji, and the first accused's brother-in-law PW4/Thirupathi. According to PW1, immediately after the assault, the first accused's wife, Amudha, died on the spot. Thereafter, PW1 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, viz., Ganesan (PW14). On the basis of the complaint given by PW1, PW14, the Sub Inspector of Police registered an F.I.R. at about 10 a.m. on the same day and forwarded the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate as well as to the Investigating Officer. 3.2. Immediately after the receipt of the First Information Report, the Investigating Officer (PW15) proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch at about 11.15 a.m. in the presence of PW6/Govindaraj and PW7/Perumal. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recovered the wooden log and other material objects at the scene of occurrence. He also recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, mahazar witnesses PW6 and PW7, and one Murugan/PW13. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recovered the wooden log and other material objects at the scene of occurrence. He also recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, mahazar witnesses PW6 and PW7, and one Murugan/PW13. After recording their evidences, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where the deceased's body was kept for postmortem. In the hospital, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest upon the body of the deceased and made arrangements for it's postmortem. Thereafter, PW9/Dr. A. Kalaiarasan conducted a postmortem and in the postmortem certificate [Ex.P12], he gave his opinion that the deceased appears to be died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. 3.3. It appears that on 01.08.2017, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused voluntarily surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer [PW8], and gave an extra-judicial confession. Immediately after recording the extra-judicial confession, PW8 made arrangements to surrender the accused before the Police. On his surrender before the Police Station, the Investigating Officer made arrangements to remand him for judicial custody. 3.4. It is further case of the prosecution that, the accused once again voluntarily confessed his guilt before the Investigating Officer, and such confession statement was recorded in the presence of PW8/Sathish and his assistant, viz., Viswanathan. In furtherance of such confession statement, a discovery of fact was effected by recovering the blood-stained shirts and lungi. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer also seized the blood-stained dress material of PW1, and the deceased's dress material and made arrangements for it's forensic examination. The Investigating Officer had also recorded the statement of the postmortem doctor, PW9, and Dr.Kailash/PW5, who gave first aid to PW1. 3.5. It is also the case of the prosecution that they have made arrangements to record the statements of PW1, PW2, and PW4 before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. After that, the Investigating Officer has also received the forensic report. Thus, after completing the investigation, he laid the final report on 14.10.2017 against both the accused under Sections 302 , 323 , and 506(ii) of IPC and 302 read with 109 of IPC . 4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15, marked 29 documents as Exs. P1 to P29, and 10 material objects as MO1 to MO10. On behalf of the defence, 5 documents were marked as Exs. 4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15, marked 29 documents as Exs. P1 to P29, and 10 material objects as MO1 to MO10. On behalf of the defence, 5 documents were marked as Exs. D1 to D5, and no witnesses or material objects were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidences, has arrived at a conclusion that the charge against the second accused has not been proved. However, it found the first accused guilty under Sections 302 , 323 , and 506(ii) of IPC and imposed life imprisonment and other punishments against him. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused preferred the instant Criminal Appeal. 6. We have heard Mr.R.Selvakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused would vehemently contend that the alleged eyewitnesses are none other than the children and relatives of the deceased [Amutha], and that admittedly there was previous animosity among them. It is also his contention that the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses is wholly unreliable and contradictory to each other. He would further contend that the extra-judicial confession is a concocted one, which could be evidently proved by comparing the confession statement recorded by the Police as well as the extra-judicial confession. 7.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that, the presence of the Police at the time of recording the extra-judicial confession would make such confession become inadmissible. He would further submit that the earlier complaint was suppressed, and that there was a delay in registering the First Information Report. Thus, the learned counsel would urge before this Court that, without discussing the numerous reasonable doubt, the Trial Court has mechanically accepted the evidence of the prosecution and erroneously convicted the first accused. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the order of conviction. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that the evidence of PW1/Revathi, PW2/Balaji, and PW4/Thirupathi would clinchingly establish the involvement of the accused in the crime, and that their evidence corroborates each other. It is also his submission that their evidence is further supported by the extra- judicial confession, and the recovery of blood-stained dress material from the first accused. It is also his submission that their evidence is further supported by the extra- judicial confession, and the recovery of blood-stained dress material from the first accused. As such, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the instant Criminal Appeal. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the either side submissions. 10. While harmoniously analyzing the entire factual scenario of the instant case, the prosecution attempted to prove the charge through eyewitnesses account, as well as through extra-judicial confession. To substantiate the case through eyewitnesses, the prosecution relies on the evidence of the accused's daughter [PW1], son [PW2], and his brother-in- law [PW4]. In respect of the extra-judicial confession, the prosecution placed much reliance upon the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer [PW8], who recorded the confession. 11. Let us first consider whether the prosecution has proved the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6), beyond reasonable doubt? According to PW8, on 01.08.2017, when he was in his office, at about 8.00 a.m., the accused voluntarily gave an extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6). However, the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused would contend that the extra-judicial confession is not a voluntary one, since the Police was present at the time of recording the extra-judicial confession. In this regard, it is useful to extract the admissions made by PW8, which reads as follows:- 12. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused would further invite the attention of this Court with respect to the evidence of the Investigating Officer. According to the Investigating Officer, he fairly conceded that the contents of the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6) and the alleged confession given before the Police are identical in nature. In this regard, it is useful to extract the admissions made by the Investigating Officer [PW15], during his cross-examination, which reads as follows:- 13. From the similarity of the contents and recitals of the confession statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, and the Ex.P6, extra judicial confession, and the presence of the Police while recording of extra judicial confession [Ex.P6] would make the very extra-judicial confession doubtful and unsafe to be relied upon. It is a well-settled principle of law that, during the investigation, any statement given by the accused before the Police is inadmissible in evidence. It is a well-settled principle of law that, during the investigation, any statement given by the accused before the Police is inadmissible in evidence. But in our case, though the prosecution has projected a case of voluntary confession before a third party, the Village Administrative Officer, the presence of the Police while such confession Ex.P6 was recorded would make such confession statement inadmissible. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the prosecution cannot rely upon the extra-judicial confession [Ex.P6] to support their case. 14. In such a view of the matter, now the issue narrows down as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt through the eyewitness account. In respect of the eyewitnesses, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident was witnessed by PW1, PW2, and PW4. PW1 and PW2 are the daughter and son, respectively, of the first accused, born through the deceased. PW4 is the brother-in-law of the first accused and the brother of the deceased. 15. Besides these three persons, the prosecution would also rely on another witness, qua one Mr.Nadheem, who was examined as PW3. However, he turned hostile. According to PW1 [daughter], the occurrence took place on 31.07.2017 at about 8.45 a.m. It is her further statement that at the beginning of the occurrence itself her brother PW2 and the first accused's brother-in-law PW4 reached the scene of occurrence and were present. PW2 and PW4 also deposed that they were present at the scene of occurrence when the occurrence took place. It is an admitted fact that PW2 and PW4 were not originally present at the scene of occurrence, but arrived to the scene of occurrence on knowing about some squabbles between the deceased [Amudha] and the first accused. It is the statement of PW1 that the occurrence started at about 8.15 a.m. and was over within 5 to 10 minutes. In order to appreciate her evidence, it is appropriate to extract the same, which reads as follows:- 16. Therefore, it is the case that the occurrence took place between 8.15 to 8.25 a.m., at the most, by 8.30 a.m. However, we are not on the exact timing of the occurrence, but on the point as to whether PW2 and PW4 could have reached the scene of occurrence to witnesses the crime of murder. According to PW1's evidence, the entire occurrence lasted for 15 minutes. According to PW1's evidence, the entire occurrence lasted for 15 minutes. In this background, it is relevant to analyse as to whether PW2 and PW4 could have reached the scene of occurrence, within a span of 15 minutes? It is an admitted case that PW2 knew the squabbles on the way to his College, and was returning by taking a lift in a car. PW4, who is the maternal uncle and brother of the deceased, would state that he received a phone call at about 8.15 a.m. and was waiting for the arrival of PW2/Balaji. On his arrival, both of them reached the scene of occurrence and witnessed the assault. From their statements, it appears, as if the first accused waited for the arrival of PW2 and PW4 to witness the occurrence. 17. It is pertinent to look at the evidence of PW4, according to him after he knew about the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the first accused, he waited for the arrival of PW2 from his College for a period of 30 minutes, and only after 30 minutes, he proceed to the scene of occurrence. Therefore, if we analyze the evidence of PW1 on one hand, and the evidence of PW2 and PW4 on the other hand, the possibility of the presence of PW2 and PW4 at the scene of occurrence is very much doubtful and impracticable. Such reasoning of this Court could be evidently justified by relying upon the previous statement of PW2/Balaji recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and marked as Ex.P17. In this regard, it is useful to extract his statement, which reads as follows:- 18. Though PW2 says during trial that, he reached the scene of occurrence in the midst of the assault. On the contrary, his previous statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C establishes that he came to the scene of occurrence after the occurrence was over. Therefore, it is very much clear from his previous statement, Ex.P17, that PW2 could not have been an occurrence witness. In such view of the matter, the presence of PW4 would also become highly doubtful. 19. While further analyzing the evidence of PW4, he states that he proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with PW2. However, PW2 did not refer about PW4. In such view of the matter, the presence of PW4 would also become highly doubtful. 19. While further analyzing the evidence of PW4, he states that he proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with PW2. However, PW2 did not refer about PW4. According to PW2, he reached the scene of occurrence in his friend's vehicle, which is contrary to PW4's theory that he waited for the arrival of PW2, and took him to scene of occurrence, which is a inherent material contradiction from PW2's evidence. Therefore, it is apparent that the presence of PW2 and PW4 are highly doubtful. 20. As already stated, the other eyewitness, PW3/Nadheem, had turned hostile, and the only witness available was PW1. In view of her statements that PW2 and PW4 were present at the scene of occurrence, which we found as highly doubtful, it becomes unsafe to rely on her evidence. Further, the statement of PW1 is shrouded with many reasonable doubts, which goes to the root of the matter. If we go by the accident register of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P10, the deceased was taken to the hospital by the Police, wherein the doctor had recorded as follows:- 21. As per Ex.P10, the deceased was taken to the hospital at about 11.45 a.m., by the Police. If the Police had really reached the scene of occurrence at about 11.15 a.m. and the First Information Report had been registered at about 10.00 clock on 31.07.2017, there would not have been such a blunt reference in Ex.P10, accident report. It might have been reported as an assault by a know person. Therefore, the entry made by the doctor would also support the case of the accused and add doubt over the veracity of the evidence of PW1. Here to corroborate PW1's evidence, there are no independent witnesses. 22. Besides the above reasonable doubt, yet another reasonable doubt was also projected by the appellant. According to PW1, after the occurrence and after knowing of her mother's death, PW1, her brother, and her uncle went to the Police Station and gave a complaint before the Investigating Officer/PW15. But during cross-examination, PW1 had categorically admitted that when the Police reached the scene of occurrence along with the Ambulance, they had given a complaint to the Police. According to PW1, after the occurrence and after knowing of her mother's death, PW1, her brother, and her uncle went to the Police Station and gave a complaint before the Investigating Officer/PW15. But during cross-examination, PW1 had categorically admitted that when the Police reached the scene of occurrence along with the Ambulance, they had given a complaint to the Police. In order to strengthen the above statement, PW2/Balaji, who is the brother of PW1, had also admitted during cross-examination that, at the scene of occurrence, they had also given a complaint to the Police. In order to appreciate the above factum, it is appropriate to extract the admissions made by PW1 and PW2. According to PW1, she would admit as follows:- Similarly PW2 admits as follows:- 23. Therefore, it is apparent that there was an earlier complaint prior to Ex.P1, complaint, which was suppressed by the Police. Though it was projected as if the occurrence took place at 8.45 a.m., the First Information Report was registered at 10.00 clock, and the First Information Report reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 1.00 clock on 31.07.2017, in view of the above unequivocal admission of PW1 and PW2 about the earlier complaint, it's non production would definitely make a dent in the prosecution case. 24. On appreciation of Ex.P10, accident register, the deceased was first found unconscious at the Cow Shed at about 9.00 a.m., and until 11.45 a.m., qua the time of recording of accident register, it was not a case of murder. Whereas, contrary to Ex.P10, the First Information Report and the complaint project as if the murder took place at about 8.45 a.m. by the first accused. It is obvious that any delay in registering the First Information Report ushers craftsmanship, manipulation and embellishment to the actual occurrence. It is in this background, the non-production of the earliest complaint would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. 25. Apart from that, there is also another angle of reasonable doubt. According to PW1, she had categorically stated that she had given a complaint to the Investigating Officer, Anbumani [PW15]. In this regard, it is useful to extract her admission, which reads as follows:- 26. Though PW1 would state that the complaint was written by the Police on her instructions, during cross-examination, she stated that it was written by the Investigating Officer/PW15. In this regard, it is useful to extract her admission, which reads as follows:- 26. Though PW1 would state that the complaint was written by the Police on her instructions, during cross-examination, she stated that it was written by the Investigating Officer/PW15. In this regard, it is useful to extract her admission, which reads as follows:- 27. It is in this background, we are of the firm view that a complaint was given before the Investigating Officer, Anbumani, at the scene of occurrence, and such complaint was suppressed before this Court. Though there were discrepancies about the time of occurrence, we are not on the point of the exact time of the occurrence, but on the point whether PW2 and PW4 could have reached the scene of occurrence, which we had found to be impossible. In view of the above discrepancies, the standard of evidence of PW1 becomes neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. There are no corroboration to PW1's evidence to act on it. 28. In such a view of the matter, we are of the firm view that there are numerous reasonable doubts in the prosecution case. However, the Trial Court, without going into those reasonable doubts, has mechanically accepted the statements of the witnesses and has erroneously found against the accused. Accordingly, there are ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 29. Before we record our final conclusion, we deem it appropriate to recapitulate our findings: (i) The voluntariness of extra judicial confession becomes doubtful since Police were present during it's recording. (ii) Further, the presence of the Police while recording Ex.P6, extra- judicial confession would make such statement become inadmissible in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. (iii) Though PW1 states that PW2 and PW4 arrived to the scene of occurrence jointly and were eyewitnesses, PW2 categorically admits in his previous statement [Ex.P17] that he never witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, PW4's evidence also becomes unreliable. (iv) Even for a moment, if we construe PW1 as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, there are no corroborations to her evidence. (v) Though PW1 and PW2 admit about the complaint given before the Investigating Officer/Anbumani at the scene of occurrence, such complaint was suppressed by the prosecution before this Court. (vi) According to Ex.P10, accident register copy, it projects a case of suspicious death until 11.45 hours. (v) Though PW1 and PW2 admit about the complaint given before the Investigating Officer/Anbumani at the scene of occurrence, such complaint was suppressed by the prosecution before this Court. (vi) According to Ex.P10, accident register copy, it projects a case of suspicious death until 11.45 hours. Therefore, the time of registration of the First Information Report also becomes doubtful. 30. In view of the above reasonable doubts, all of which goes to the root of the matter, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the first accused beyond reasonable doubts. As such, the first accused is entitled to have the benefit of those doubts. 31. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed, and the judgement dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.14 of 2018 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any executed, shall stand cancelled.