JUDGMENT : G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. 1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.87 of 2019, dated 07.02.2023, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased fell in love with the accused. When this came to the knowledge of the deceased's father, he arranged marriage for her with some other person. Therefore, the deceased compelled the accused, both over the phone and in person, to marry her. As a result, the accused became angry and with an intention to do away with the life of the deceased, he went to meet her after talking to her over the phone on 31.01.2019 at about 09.00 p.m. The accused asked the deceased to come out of her house to R.S. Pathy field, situated at the rear side of her house, where he was standing. While they were talking, the deceased again compelled him to marry her, which led to a wordy quarrel. During the quarrel, the deceased picked up a wooden log lying there and assaulted the accused on his head and body. In turn, the accused, who was already enraged, became furious and took out a knife which was hidden in his hip and stabbed the deceased in her left ear and chin. Further, he snatched the wooden log from the deceased and assaulted her with it. As a result, the deceased fell down in a pool of blood, sustaining grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to those injuries. 3. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court. 4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P20. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.7. On the side of the accused, Ex.D.1 was marked and no witnesses were examined before the Trial Court. 5. 4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P20. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.7. On the side of the accused, Ex.D.1 was marked and no witnesses were examined before the Trial Court. 5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not arrested by the respondent in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the appellant did not give any confession statement and no recovery was effected pursuant thereto. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the arrest and recovery of the weapon. The prosecution itself projected the case as though the deceased went to the scene of crime on the call made by the appellant. There was a wordy quarrel between them since the appellant refused to marry her, due to which the deceased attacked the appellant with a wooden log. Therefore, the appellant allegedly took the knife from his hip and assaulted her and also beat her with wooden log which was used by the deceased. This version of the prosecution is a cooked-up story without any supporting evidence. No witness has spoken about the case of the prosecution as projected and all the witnesses stated that they came to the scene of crime and saw both the appellant and the deceased injured. According to them, both sustained injuries and immediately the appellant was taken to the police station. Hence, the entire case of the prosecution is cooked up by the respondent without any piece of evidence and the Trial Court mechanically convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution completely suppressed the fact that the appellant also sustained injuries and did not subject him for medical examination. This omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. This omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that P.W.1 to P.W.5 categorically deposed about the case of the prosecution as well as the motive. The appellant fell in love with the deceased, which was objected by P.W.1, the father of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased compelled the appellant to marry her. The appellant refused to marry her and as such the deceased initially attacked him with a wooden log. However, the appellant had gone to the scene of crime with the intention to do away with the life of the deceased and was carrying a knife. He took out the knife from his hip and stabbed her indiscriminately, resulting in her death on the spot. She fell in a pool of blood and died due to the injuries sustained. The arrest and recovery were duly proved by the prosecution and therefore, it does not warrant any interference of this Court. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The father of the deceased had deposed as P.W.1. He deposed that he was informed by one Ashok about the noise behind his house. Immediately thereafter, he went to the spot and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The appellant was also present at the scene with a wooden log. He further spoke about the motive, stating that the appellant fell in love with the deceased and had offered to marry her. However, P.W.1 refused to permit the marriage and he was searching for another bridegroom. Due to which, the appellant came to the house of P.W.1 and murdered the deceased. He also categorically admitted that the appellant had sustained injuries on his head and all over his body. While he was present, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and had already died. He did not witness the appellant allegedly attacking the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the police came to the scene of crime and took the appellant in their vehicle. The body of the deceased was also taken in ambulance to the Government Hospital, Pudukottai. While he was present, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and had already died. He did not witness the appellant allegedly attacking the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the police came to the scene of crime and took the appellant in their vehicle. The body of the deceased was also taken in ambulance to the Government Hospital, Pudukottai. On the same day at about 01.00 a.m., P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint. The relevant portion of his deposition is as follows: 11. Thus, it is clear that no one had actually witnessed the occurrence. However, the prosecution projected P.W.1 as one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. One independent witness was examined as P.W.2. She also went to the scene of crime only after that occurrence. She corroborated the fact that both the deceased and the appellant were very much available in the scene of crime. Thereafter, the police arrived at the spot and took the appellant to the police station. P.W.2 also confirmed that the appellant and the deceased fell in love and that P.W.1 refused to accept their love, thereby denying the marriage proposed by the appellant. 12. The cousin brother of the deceased had deposed as P.W.3. He deposed that he did not witness the occurrence and that after hearing the noise, he went to the scene of crime. According to him, after stabbing the deceased, the appellant fled away from the scene of crime. He further stated that he heard from the deceased's father i.e. P.W.1, that he had seen the occurrence. Therefore, though the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5, none of them deposed that they had witnessed the occurrence. Though the prosecution projected them as eyewitnesses, they are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence and reached the scene only after the incident, where they saw both the appellant and the deceased sustaining injuries. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was putforth that while the deceased and the appellant were talking, a third party who did not accept their love affair attacked both of them, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Though this version was not proved by the defence, the prosecution has also failed to prove its case by any acceptable evidence. Though this version was not proved by the defence, the prosecution has also failed to prove its case by any acceptable evidence. The prosecution projected the case in a way that the deceased attacked the appellant with a wooden log and that the appellant, in turn, stabbed her with a knife and assaulted her with the wooden log but the same was not supported by any evidence. 13. It is also curious to note that the charge itself was framed as against the appellant as follows: 14. However, there is absolutely no material produced by the prosecution to justify the framing of such a charge by the Trial Court. The Assistant to the Village Administrative Officer had deposed as P.W.6. He deposed regarding the arrest of the appellant, the alleged confession statement, recovery of the knife and clothes. According to P.W.6, the respondent arrested the appellant at Mullungkurichi, Periyakulam. Further, the appellant allegedly made a confession statement admitting that he murdered the deceased and signed the same. The said confession statement purportedly led to the recovery of the knife, which was produced as Material Object No.5. However, as per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the appellant was very much present at the scene of crime and the police personnel arrived at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence. The appellant was taken by the police to the police station and the deceased was taken to the hospital. Further, both the weapons, namely the wooden log and knife, were recovered from the scene of crime itself. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 is completely contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. In order to strengthen the case of the prosecution, P.W.6 was examined with regard to the arrest, confession and recovery. Further, though the appellant sustained injuries on his head and all over his body, he was not subjected for any medical examination and no Accident Register was prepared. This fact was also completely suppressed by the prosecution during the course of investigation. In the remand request submitted by the respondent while producing the appellant before the Court, the injuries were mentioned as follows: 15. Even thereafter, the appellant was not subjected to any medical examination, nor he was treated by a doctor. This fact was also completely suppressed by the prosecution during the course of investigation. In the remand request submitted by the respondent while producing the appellant before the Court, the injuries were mentioned as follows: 15. Even thereafter, the appellant was not subjected to any medical examination, nor he was treated by a doctor. This fact is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, who categorically deposed that the appellant sustained injuries on his left cheek, forehead, jaw and left ear and that he was covered with bloodstains. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of I.PC as against the appellant. The manner in which the prosecution projected the case is unsupported by any evidence and none of the witnesses have spoken in support of the prosecution version. 16. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.87 of 2019, dated 07.02.2023, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment made in S.C.No.87 of 2019, dated 07.02.2023, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are no longer required in connection with any other case.