IMPORTANT POINT
The authenticity and integrity of the FIR and medical records are crucial in establishing the prosecution's case. The suppression of key evidence can undermine the entire fabric of the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the Judgment of S.C. No. 11/2012 dated 13.03.2013 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and to allow the above Criminal Appeal.

1. This Criminal Appeal against the acquittal has been preferred by PW-1/the de facto complainant.

2.........

(i) The case of the prosecution is that the accused/respondents 2 to 4 were digging holes near the house of the deceased and the de facto complainant on 22.03.2010 at about 7.00 a.m. that the deceased advised the accused to dig holes at some other place, for which the accused insulted the deceased, and the first accused assaulted the deceased with a crowbar, causing head injuries to the deceased.

(ii) It is further the case of the prosecution that the statement of the de facto complainant was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police/PW-11 at Ariyalur Government Hospital, and a case was registered in Crime No. 250 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 307 of the IPC.

(iii) PW-12/the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P8], and examined other witnesses. At about 3.00 p.m., on the same day, he arrested the first accused and seized the crowbar [M.O.1] under Seizure Mahazar on the confession of the first accused. After examination of all other witnesses, PW-12 received intimation from the relatives that the deceased succumbed to injuries on 08.10.2010 and hence, he altered the offences to Sections 294 (b) and 302 of the IPC. The alteration report was marked as Ex.P9. He conducted an inquest in the presence of Panchayadaras and prepared an inquest report [Ex.P10]. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to PW-14, who filed the Final Report after examining other witnesses on 03.04.2011 for the offence under Sections 294 (b) and 302 of the IPC against the accused.

(iv) On the appearance of the accused/respondents 2 to 4, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No. 11 of 2012 and was made over to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, for trial. The trial Court framed charges u/s.294 (b) and 302 of the IPC as against the accused/respondents 2 to 4, and when questioned, the accused/respondents 2 to 4, pleaded not guilty.

(v) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-17, marked 13 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P13, and marked one Material Object as M.O.1. When the accused/respondents 2 to 4 were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused/respondents 2 to 4 did not examine any witnesses or mark any documents.

(vi) The Trial Court found that the prosecution had not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused/respondents 2 to 4.

3. Heard, Mr. R. Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the appellant/ de facto complainant, Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State and Mr. V. Rajamohan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4/accused.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/PW-1/de facto complainant, submitted that the Judgment of the Trial Court is perverse; that the evidence of eye-witnesses had been ignored and therefore, the Judgment of the Trial Court calls for interference.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant. However, the State had not chosen to file an appeal.

6. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4/accused submitted that the Trial Court had elaborately considered the evidence and after proper appreciation of the evidence, had acquitted them, and therefore, no interference is called for.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

8. The law relating