The delay in lodging a complaint should be examined based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the nature of the injuries sustained can influence the application of legal provisions.

Raja Elango, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment made in S.C.No.113 of 2006 by the District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai convicting the appellant/ accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC., and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i) On 010. 2002 at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased Poongavanam was sitting out side of his house at Eachur and shouted that a false complaint has been lodged against him; that on hearing the same the accused who rushed to the deceased armed with a stick started assaulting the deceased believing that the deceased refers to him alone, on his chest and stomach. As a result of which the deceased fell down and thereafter, the accused sat on the body of the deceased and started assaulting the deceased with a stone on his chest, stomach and on both legs repeatedly; that on seeing the same, witness Maheswari intervened in order to pacify the situation, but the accused not only pushed her aside, but also the other witnesses who came in rescue of the deceased; he threatened the witnesses with dire consequences and criminally intimidated them by showing the stone. The deceased has been rushed to the Government Hospital at Vandhavasi then transferred to the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu. On 010. 2003 and on 010. 2007 at about 09.30 a.m., he died of injuries that have been caused by the accused.

(ii) P.W.1 set the law in motion. On the basis of complaint lodged by P.W.1 case was registered in Cr.No.806/2002 under Section 302.I.P.C.

(iii) P.W.12 Inspector of Police had taken up investigation, he inspected scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.A6 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P12 Rough Sketch. In the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu inquest was held on the body of the deceased Poongavanam and Ex.P13 is the inquest report. On requisition from investigating officer

P.W.9 Dr. Parasakthi had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and noted depressed communited injuries in the head and stomach. P.W.9 opined that death was due to chest and stomach injury and issued Ex.P10 Post mortem certificate.

(iv) On 010. 2002 at about 3.00 P.M., the accused was arrested by P.W.12-Investigating Officer. Confession statement of accused led to recovery of M.O.1 stick and M.O.2 stone under Ex.P4 Seizure Mahazar. P.W.12. Investigating officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.13- successor Inspector of Police examined the Doctor who conducted the autopsy and recorded his statement and on completion of investigation final report was filed against the accused on 04.03.2006 for the offence under Section 302, 304 and 506(II) I.P.C.

3. To substantiate charges against the accused, in the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.

4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. Upon analysis of evidence, the trial Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed fine.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in believing the evidence of PWs.2,3 and 7 and their presence in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and further they are related to the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused further contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, i.e., the occurrence on 010. 2002, where as the complaint was lodged on 010. 2002, the complaint was also received by the Magistrate on 010. 2002. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused further contended that there are lot of improvements and discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the above said witnesses.

6. We ca