In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 19/10/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice R.BALASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KANNADASAN Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2002 1.Sadayandi (a) Jayaraman 2.Murugan 3.Damodaran 4.Narayanan 5.Rajeev Gandhi 6.Kumar (a) Senthil Kumar ..Appellants -Vs- State by Inspector of Police Kurinjipadi Police Station Cuddalore District. ..Respondent APPEAL under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the convictions and sentences made in S.C.No.50 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore dated 15.5.2002. For Appellants : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, SC for Mr.K.N.Basha For Respondent : Mr.E.Raja, APP :JUDGMENT (JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY R.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J) Accused 1 to 6 in S.C.NO.50 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore are the appellants in this appeal. They are challenging the conviction made against them, the details of which are given here-under in the above referred to sessions case, by filing this appeal. Heard Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The following are the charges framed against the appellants : "i. Section 148 IPC - A1 to A6; ii. Section 324 IPC - A1 to A4 with reference to the injuries stated to have been caused by them on PW1; iii. Section 324 IPC  A3 and A5 with reference to the injuries stated to have been caused by them on PW2; iv. Sections 302 read with 34 IPC  A3 and A6 for causing the death of one Kumarasamy; v. Sections 302 read with 149 IPC  A1, A2, A4 and A5." On the accused denying the charges as false and contrary to facts, the trial went on, by the prosecution examining PWS 1 to 19 and marking ExP1 to ExP17. The defence marked ExD1 and ExD2 with no oral evidence on their side. MOS 1 to 6 came to be marked. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found all the charges proved and convicted and sentenced each of the respective accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year together with a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence (A1 to A6) for charge No.1; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year together with a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence (A1 to A4); to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence (A3 and A5); to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,00 0/- carrying a default sentence (A3 and A6); and acquitted A1, A2, A4 and A5 on charge No.5. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. As already stated it is this judgment that is in challenge in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case is that due to prior enmity at about 3.30 PM on 27.12.1999 the accused as referred to above being the members of an unlawful assembly caused injuries on PWS 1 and 2 besides causing injuries on Kumarasamy, who breathed his last on 12.1.2000. To substantiate their case the prosecution examined PWS 1 to 4 and 6 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of PW1 who had lodged ExP1  the complaint before PW18  the Sub.Inspector of Police is as hereunder : "Kumarasamy (since deceased) is his uncle; the witnesses and the accused are belonging to the village Kalkunam and they reside in the same street, namely Perumal Koil Street; A2 is the nephew of A1; A3 to A5 are related to A1; A6 is A1's friend; PW10 is the son of the deceased; on 25.12.1999 at about 4 PM, PW10 was riding a bicycle with the mother-in-law of one Nandagopal as his pillion rider; struck in sand spread in the road and they fell down resulting in an injury to the pillion rider; seeing that incident, A2, A3, A5 and A6 laughed; PW10 informed this to PW1 and others; immediately PW1, PW10 and others questioned A2, A3, A5 and A6 as to why they laughed on the fall of PW1 and the pillion rider of his bicycle; this was followed by a wordy quarrel and they were separated; on the day of occurrence PW1 proceeded to Kurinjipadi in his TVS 50 motor cycle with his mother PW6 seated on the back; as they were near the house of Thangaraj (not examined), all the six accused came; A6 was armed with an iron pipe; A3 with a stick; and A1 and other accused were each armed with iron pipes; they challenged him about the previous day quarrel and A1 attacked PW1 on his right ring finger followed by A2 attacking with an iron pipe; this was followed by A3 attacking with stick on the right hand wrist while A4 with the iron pipe beat him on his left thigh; Kumarasamy ( since deceased) intervened and A6 stating that with that blow he must be finished of, hit him on his left side head and A3 with a stick hit on the right cheek of Kumarasamy; Narayanan  PW2 questioned and A5 with the iron pipe hit him on his left side head followed by another assault on his right hand; A3 also attacked PW2 on his right shoulder; the occurrence was witnessed by PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6; Kumarasamy was lying on the ground profusely bleeding from his head and by his side PW2 was also lying down; the injured were taken in a tyre cart to the hospital and at 7.30 PM, PW1 gave the complaint in the investigating police station; he was afraid to go to the police station immediately and thereafter he reached the police station only at 7 PM with his friends; with the help of pettyshop owner opposite to the police station, he got the complaint reduced into writing which he presented to the police station and it stands marked as ExP1; he was sent to the Government Hospital at Kurinjipadi with the police medical memo where the doctor (PW12) examined him; it was 8.30 PM on that day and on the next day at about 3 PM he was transferred to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore for better treatment where he was admitted as an inpatient; Kumarasamy was transferred from the Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore to Government Hospital, Chennai where he died 15 days later; MO1 was the weapon in the hands of A1 and MO2 was the weapon in the hands of A6." 4. Regarding the occurrence proper, there is a parrot like repeating of the evidence of PW1 by PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6. PW18 is the Sub. Inspector of Police on duty in the investigating police station on the day of occurrence. At about 8.30 on that day when he was in the police station PW1 appeared before him and gave a written complaint which he registered in his police station Crime No.551 of 1999 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. ExP14 is the printed first information report prepared by him. He sent the material records to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III at Cuddalore as well as to the higher officials. He assisted the Investigating Officer (PW19) in the investigation. He sent the injured Ragupathy (PW1) with a medical memo bearing NO.85/99 to the hospital for treatment. 5. PW19 is the Investigating Officer in this case. At 8 PM on 27.12.1999 he collected the material records and commenced the investigation. He reached the scene of occurrence at 8.30 PM and in the presence of PW7 and another he prepared ExP2  observation mahazar. ExP15 is the rough sketch prepared by him. Through PW11 the photographer he caused photographs of the scene of occurrence to be taken and MO3 series are the photographs and MO4 series are the negatives. At 9 PM in the presence of PW7 and another he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth  MOS 5 and 6 under ExP3. He examined PW3, PW4, PW10, PW7 and others and recorded their statements. He examined PW2 in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore. He examined PW1 in the Government Primary Health Centre at Kurinjipadi and recorded his statement. He examined further witnesses on 29.12.1999 and recorded their statements. At 9.30 AM on 29.12.1999 he arrested A3 and A5 near a kalyana mandapam at Vadalur and brought them to the police station at about 2.30 PM. At 7 PM on the same day near Mariamman temple of Reddipalayam he arrested A1 and A6. On examination A1, in the presence of PW7 and another, gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is ExP4. Pursuant to ExP4, MO1 came to be recovered under ExP5 attested by the same witnesses. The accused were sent for judicial remand. He sent the recovered incriminating objects to the Court. He came to know that at 2.45 PM on 12.1.2000 Kumarasamy breathed his last in the Government Hospital, Chennai and accordingly altered the section of offence already registered by adding the offence under Section 302 and prepared the altered first information report ExP16. PW16 is the Constable attached to the Police Out Post to the Government Hospital, Chennai and he passed on the death intimation  ExP13 over telephone to PW18 - the Sub.Inspector of Police in the investigating police station. PW19 went to the Government Hospital, Chennai on 13.1.2000 and in the presence of panchayatdhars and witnesses he conducted inquest over the dead body from 10.30 AM and prepared ExP17  the inquest report. Then he gave a requisition through his police constable PW17 for conducting post mortem. 6. PW17 - the Head Constable attached to the investigating police station carried the requisition given by PW19 to the doctor and identified the dead body. He was present through out post mortem. PW15 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body on receipt of requisition ExP11 sent by PW19 through PW17. She commenced post mortem at 3.30 PM on 13.1.2000 during which she found various symptoms as noted by her in the post mortem report, namely ExP12. The symptoms noted by her are as here-under : "External injuries : On examination I found an inverted 'U' shaped infected surgically sutured wound seen over left side tempero parietal regions of scalp. On examination I found the following internal injury : On removal of the sutures in the above said injury NO.1 sub.scalp hame atoma over the left side front to parietal regions noted. The underlying lacerated dura matter seen with the absence of the underlying fronto parietal bone. Extra dural blood clot of about 10 gms noted in the above said regions. Small pieces of bone bits 1 X 1/2cm were seen embedded in the substance of fronto parietal lobes of brain. Communuted fracture of remaining left side fronto parietal bones and base of skull involving the anterior and middle cranial fossae. Heart : All chambers contained fluid blood coronary vessels narrowed due to atherosclerosis. Great vessels atherosclerosed. Lungs : congested. Hyoid bone : intact. Stomach : contained 100 ml of brown fluid. Mucosal pale. Bladder : empty. Liver spleen & kidneys : congested." The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to complications of head injuries sepsis. After post mortem PW17 handed over the dead body to the relatives and he was examined on 7.2.2000 by PW19. 7. PW19 continued the investigation further by examining the witnesses and recording their statements. PW5 had been examined to speak about the occurrence that is said to have taken place on 25.12.1999. PW7 is the witness to the preparation of ExP2 observation mahazar. PW8 witnessed the arrest of A1 and A6; recording confession statement of A1  the admissible portion of which being ExP4 and recovery of MOS 1 and 2 under ExP5. PW9 is another son of the deceased. His evidence is that he was in the garden lands on 27.12.1999 and on coming to know about the incident he reached the scene of occurrence where he found his father lying just opposite to the house of Thangaraj with bleeding injuries and he was not able to talk. He would further state that he also noticed PW2 lying nearby with bleeding injuries and PW1 was also there with a bleeding injury on his hand. He would also state that he transported his father and PW2 in a tyre cart to Kurinjipadi from where he hired a taxi and took both of them to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore. He reached the hospital at about 5.4 5 PM on the same day. He would further depose that PW2 was admitted as an inpatient and Kumarasamy was advised to take treatment in the Government Hospital, Chennai. Accordingly, he took his father to Chennai where his father was admitted as an inpatient at about 2 AM in the following morning and that his father died 13 days after such admission. 8. PW10 had been examined to speak about the occurrence that had taken place on 25.12.1999. PW11 is the photographer who had proved MO3 series  photographs and MO4 series  negatives. PW12 is the Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Primary Health Centre of Kurinjipadi before whom at about 8 PM on 27.12.1999 PW1 appeared with the police medical memo. He examined PW1 and at that time PW1 told him that at about 3 PM on the same day he received injuries at the hands of four known persons by use of iron pipes. He noticed various symptoms as noted by him in ExP6 - the accident register. The injures are as follows : "a. A lacerated injury 2 X 1 X 1 cm in the right ring finger; b. Contusion 4 X 2 X 5 cm in the right wrist; and c. Contusion 4 X 2 cm in the left hip and left thigh" and the injuries are stated to be simple in nature. According to him the injuries could have been caused in the manner and at the time alleged. PW1 was referred to Government Headquarters Hospital where XRay was taken and no fracture was disclosed. ExP7 is the wound certificate given by him for PW1. 9. PW13 is the Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore and at 5.40 PM on 27.12.1999 Thangamani, S/ O Kumarasamy brought Kumarasamy before him complaining that his father was attacked by six known persons at about 3 PM on the same day with knife. PW13 on examination found Kumarasamy unconscious and he noticed on him the following injuries : "a. Cut injury 12 X 2 X 1 cm (lt) scalp bleeding; and b. Rt.eye  blackened." ExP8 is the wound certificate given by him. PW13 also examined PW2 on the same day brought by Thangamani and on examination he was told that at 3 PM on the same day he received injuries at the hands of six known persons by the use of knife and `iron rods. The patient was conscious and on him he found a cut injury 4 X 1/2 X 1/2 cm scalp and contusion injury right arms and left leg and right scapula. ExP9 is the wound certificate given by him for PW2. At 3.20 PM on 28.12.1999 PW1 appeared before him with the case records at the Government Primary Health Centre, Kurinjipadi and on examination he found him to be conscious and he gave ExP7 medical record for him. 10. PW14 is the Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Government Hospital at Chennai and at about 1.40 hours on 28.12.1999 a person called Thangamani brought his father, namely Kumarasamy for treatment stating that his father was assaulted by known persons by use of knife and iron pipes at about 3 PM on 27.12.1999 and that the injured was referred to the Government Hospital at Chennai by the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddalore. He would state that he admitted him as an inpatient and issued ExP10  the accident register. 11. PW19 continued the investigation further by examining all the witnesses referred to above and other witnesses and recording their statements. After completing the investigation he filed the final report in Court on 15.3.2000 against the accused for offences under Sections 148, 324, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. A2 surrendered in Court on 20.1.2000 and A4 surrendered in Court on 25.4.2000. All the accused, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against each one of them, denied each and every circumstance as false and contrary to facts. They neither let in any oral evidence nor documentary evidence. As already stated the learned Sessions Judge found them guilty of the offences as referred to above and convicted them. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit the following points for consideration : Though the complaint had come to be registered in this case within four hours after the occurrence, yet on the facts of this case the delay assumes considerable importance. If that is taken note of, this Court should doubt the entire prosecution case. In elaborating this learned Senior Counsel would submit that admittedly PW1 reached the police station at 4.30 PM on the day of occurrence and there is no reason as to why the complaint stated to have been narrated by him orally was not recorded by PW18. Therefore there is every possibility of suspecting the very origin of ExP1. To attack ExP1 on the line indicated above learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the oral evidence of the injured witnesses before the Court (PWS 1 and 2) with the corresponding medical evidence supported by contemporary records prepared run contra to the overt acts attributed to the accused in ExP1 and therefore there is every reason for this Court to come to a conclusion that ExP1 should not be and ought not to be the earliest complaint. If that is so then this Court would be in a position to agree with him that PW1 reached the police station on the day of occurrence at 4.30 PM and gave a complaint and since the averments in that complaint run contra to the case of the prosecution, it had been suppressed. Next it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that on the evidence of PW19 it is clear that there was a case and counter and in such cases the prosecution is duty bound to place before the Court all the materials relating to the counter case, namely the case registered in Crime No.550 of 1999 on the file of the same police station, so that the Court would be in a position to appreciate and find out where lies the truth. Therefore there is a deliberate omission in this case in with-holding these relevant materials and this would enable this Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case. On the whole his submission is that though there are injured eyewitnesses, yet when ExP1 could be doubted as not the origin, then this Court would be justified in disbelieving the evidence of PWS 1 and 2 and other eyewitnesses about the manner and time at which the occurrence is show to have taken place and such benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor in answer to these points would submit that the complaint in this case had come to be given within four hours from the time of occurrence and on the facts of this case, especially when there is the solid evidence of PWS 1 and 2  the injured eyewitnesses, the delay pales into insignificance. The evidence of PWS 1 and 2 and other eyewitnesses are cogent and convincing which was accepted by the Sessions Court on proper appreciation and therefore there is no reason at all as to why this Court should disbelieve their evidence to come to a different conclusion. Lastly it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer had fairly admitted in his evidence that the complaint stated to have been given by the accused; and registered; the investigation done by him; and the final report filed. Therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing any relevant material from the purview of this Court. It is his further submission that on the evidence of PW19, it cannot be said that the prosecution had suppressed the truth which has caused any prejudice to the accused. 14. Having regard to the above points submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State we went through the evidence let in by the prosecution before the Court with utmost care and caution. It is no doubt true, as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence let in by the prosecution includes the evidence of two injured eyewitnesses, namely PWS 1 and 2 besides PWS 3, 4 and 6. The injuries suffered by PWS 1 and 2 stand corroborated by medical evidence and therefore unless exceptional circumstances are made out, it would not be possible for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of PWS 1 and 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as already stated is right in the above submission. However this submission is subject to a rider, namely that everything is well with the case of the prosecution. If this Court finds, on scanning the materials, any suspicious circumstances which are substantial in nature, then this Court cannot close its eyes to the said circumstances and just accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses solely on the ground that among them a few are injured eyewitnesses. Therefore the approach of the Courts in such circumstances should be to have caution in mind and to have dispassionate approach. Having that in our mind, as already stated we scanned the materials placed before the Court. 15. Since the very first attack to the prosecution case is directed against ExP1  the complaint, we are inclined to appreciate that point first which would enable us to proceed further in deciding the controversy in this case. Repeatedly the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts have laid emphasis on the value of the earliest information lodged before the police at the earliest point of time. The emphasis is that the earliest information will be devoid of any falsity. In other words it would disclose a true version of the prosecution case and there is no scope for any deliberation or omission or additions at the earliest point of time. The entire prosecution case starts from that platform (i.e.) the complaint with the police. Therefore there cannot be any doubt that the complaint lodged at the earliest point of time is the very fulcrum on which the entire edifice of the prosecution case revolves. Only in this context, the Courts have been repeatedly holding that not only there should not be a delay in giving the complaint but also there should not be any delay in sending such complaint to the Court. As already stated, so much of importance and evidentiary value is given to the earliest information to decide the credibility of the prosecution case when it is tested before Court at a later point of time. There is no doubt in this case that the occurrence took place at 3.30 PM on 27.12.1999. In this case the complaint ExP1 with the printed first information report ExP14 had come to be registered at 7.30 PM on 27.12.1999. The printed first information report shows that the police station is 5 KM south of the place of occurrence. In normal circumstances, the delay of four hours in lodging the complaint, if there are no suspicious circumstances, would not have been taken serious note of. But in this case the issue is not as simple as that and we reflect our mind on the above issue as here-under: 16. It has come out in evidence