Is a statement recorded after the police have reached the place of occurrence hit by Section 162 CrPC?

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal side) - - - - https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) (Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 11.11.2019 made in S.C.No.251 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, all the seven accused have preferred this criminal appeal. The appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows : Accused Conviction Sentence A-1, A-2 Section 148, 341, 302 and 307 read with 149 IPC Each to undergo 3 years of RI with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 148 IPC; To undergo one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under section 341 IPC; To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment for the offence under section 302 IPC; and To undergo life imprisonment (no fine imposed) for the offence under section 307 read with 149 IPC A-3, A-4 Sections 148, 341, 302 read with 149 and 307 IPC Each to undergo 3 years of RI with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 148 IPC; To undergo one month simple https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under section 341 IPC; To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w 149 IPC; and To undergo life imprisonment (no fine imposed) for the offence under section 307 IPC A-5, A-6 Sections 147, 341, 302 read with 34 and 307 read with 149 IPC Each to undergo 2 years of RI with fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 147 IPC; To undergo one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under section 341 IPC; To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 IPC; and To undergo life imprisonment (no fine imposed) for the offence under section 307 read with 149 IPC A-7 Sections 147, 341, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 34 IPC To undergo 2 years of RI with fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 147 IPC; To undergo one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under section 341 IPC; To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) years simple imprisonment for the offence under section 302 r/w 149 IPC; and To undergo life imprisonment (no fine imposed) for the offence under section 307 read with 34 IPC These sentences were ordered to run concurrently

The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows: 2.1.The accused and deceased, P.Ws.1,2,5,6 and 9 are the residents of Kalkottai village. The deceased is the uncle of P.Ws.1 and 2 and younger brother of P.W.6. The wife of the deceased is one Muthal. A-1 had developed illegal intimacy with said Muthal for the last four years. Despite objections raised by the deceased and the other family members, still they continued with their relationship. When the matter stood thus, on 16.08.2014, A-1 fought with the deceased. At that time, the deceased beat A-1 with wooden stick. P.W.1 had separated them. At that time, A-1 proclaimed that on one day, he will finish off the deceased. 2.2.After that, on 18.08.2014, when P.Ws.1, 2 and deceased and P.W.6 were returning from the Tea shop at about 07.00 p.m. to 08.00 p.m., near the hillock, namely, Kalkottai hill, all the accused waylaid the deceased and the witnesses. A-1 was carrying an iron rod, A-2 was carrying wooden log, A-3 was carrying wooden stick with iron and A-4 was carrying wooden rod. Immediately, A-5 and A-6 have caught https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) hold the deceased and A-7 caught hold P.W.1. A-1 attacked the deceased on his forehead with the iron rod, A-2 attacked the deceased on the back side of his head with wooden log, A-3 beat P.W.1 on his head and A-4 attacked P.W.1 on his left hand. On hearing the cry of the witnesses, the villagers came to the spot with torch light. On seeing the residents, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The deceased was taken to the Omalur government hospital in an ambulance and on the way to the government hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Later, P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital. 2.3.On 19.08.2014 at 4.00 a.m., P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of P.W.1, which is Ex.P.1 and registered the Crime No.776 of 2014 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307 and 302 IPC under Ex.P.6 FIR and forwarded the FIR to the Court and a copy to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating officer P.W.14, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 06.30 a.m. on 19.08.2014 and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.14 and rough sketch Ex.P.15 and also collected bloodstained soil and ordinary soil from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.16 mahazar. Thereafter, the investigating officer went to the Omalur government hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased at 09.15 a.m. in the presence of the witnesses and prepared the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) inquest report Ex.P.17. P.W.14 had recorded the statement of witnesses. At about 2.15 p.m., the investigating officer arrested the accused nos.1 to 4 in the presence of P.W.10 village administrative officer and his assistant and recorded the confession statement of A-1 Moorthy, the admissible part of the confessions statement was marked as Ex.P.7. In pursuant to the same, the investigating officer seized M.Os.1 to 4 near the place of A-5. 2.4.The Investigating officer gave a requisition to the medical officer of Salem Government Hospital to conduct postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.12, the medical officer attached to the Salem Government Mohan Kumaramangalam medical college hospital, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and noted the following injuries: ‘External Examination: Injuries: 1)Dark reddish abrasion over left side forehead M-2 cms x 1 cms. 1 cm below another abrasion M-1x1cms 2)Laceration over mid parietal region M-2 cms x 1 cm x bone deep 3)Laceration over left parietal region M-2 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep 4)Laceration below right knee M-2 cms x 0.5 cms x 0.5 cms O/D communitted fracture of underlying both bones with surrounding soft tissue contusion. Internal examination: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) O/D Head: Scalp contusion over B1 parietal region M-15x10x0.5cms. Cranial vault – Dipressed communitted fracture of mid parietal region M-12x10cms. Exposing underlying crushed brain over an area M-5x2cms. Sub Dural and Sub Arachnoid Haemorrhage seen all over brain surface. Base of skull communitted fracture of both sides of anterior and middle cranial fossa. O/D Neck: Neck structures – Normal. Hyoid Bone- Intact. O/D Thorax : Ribs – Intact. Heart-Normal in size. Chambers contained fluid blood. Valves and coronariesnormal. Both lungs-Oedematous and C/s Pale. O/D Abdomen : Stomach – contains 300 gms of partly digested cooked food particles with no specific odour mucosa – C/S Pale… Liver spleen, both kidneys – C/s Pale. Bladder-Empty. Pelvis and spinal column-Intact.’ 2.5.P.W.12, after receiving the Ex.P.10, chemical analyst report, has issued postmortem certificate Ex.P.11 and has given the final opinion Ex.P.12 that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and due to shock and haemorrhage. 2.6.P.W.13, Assistant Surgeon of Omalur Government hospital has deposed that when he was on duty on 18.08.2014 at about 09.40 p.m., P.W.1 was brought by one Ganesan for treatment and he treated P.W.1 and it was informed him that 10 known persons have attacked P.W.1 near his residence at 08.00 p.m. with hand and wooden stick. P.W.13 has found https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) 1 x 1 x 1 cm cut injury on his left parietal eminence and has issued Ex.P.13 accident register and according to him, the injury is simple in nature. 2.7.P.W.14 continued his investigation, examined other witnesses and sent all the material objects to the court. He sent the bloodstained soil, ordinary soil and the bloodstained clothes for the forensic science examination. He came to know that A-5 to A-7 have surrendered before the court. P.W.14 took them into custody and recorded their statements. Later, after obtaining the postmortem certificate and examining the medical officer who has treated P.W.1, filed the final report against the accused under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302, 302 r/w 34, 302 r/w 149, 307, 307 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. 2.8.After the filing of the final report by the investigating officer, on appearance of the accused, 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.251 of 2016 and was made over to the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur for trial.

The trial Court framed the following charges against the accused: Accused Charges A-5 to A-7 Section 147 IPC A-1 to A-4 Section 148 IPC A-1 to A-7 Section 341 IPC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) A-1 and A-2 Section 294(b) IPC A-1 and A-2 Section 302 IPC A-5 and A-6 Section 302 r/w 34 IPC A-3, A-4 and A-7 Section 302 r/w 149 IPC A-3 and A-4 Section 307 IPC A-7 Section 307 r/w 34 IPC A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 Section 307 r/w 149 IPC

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked 17 documents, namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and produced 9 material objects, namely M.O.1 to M.O.9.

On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. They denied all the incriminating circumstances as false. On the side of the defence, no evidence was recorded and no documents were marked.

The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 11.11.2019, found all the accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm )

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not come up with the true version of the case. The First information report has been registered belatedly and the same has reached the court with 14 hours inordinate delay. The reason for such delay remain unexplained by the prosecution. Ex.P.6 FIR came into existence after much deliberation. The evidence of witnesses clearly show that the police were very much present immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, the FIR is nothing but the result of deliberation after several hours. The same is also hit by section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the presence of the witnesses, namely P.Ws.1,2 and 6 is highly doubtful. Further, the nature of the injury said to have been suffered by P.W.1 is a small injury and therefore, the possibility of the self implication of such injury to plant him as eye witness cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 6 creates serious doubt with regard to their presence. Further, the prosecution is silent about the socalled motor cycles in which the witnesses and the deceased were travelling. No investigation whatsoever has been made in this regard and no motor cycles were seized. The learned counsel would further submit that the occurrence took place near the hillock and there is no source of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) light available. Therefore, in the absence of any motor cycle being used, it is highly improbable to believe their evidence. That apart, the evidence of eyewitness, P.W.1, is totally contradictory to the evidence of the medical officer. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution case is highly doubtful and the entire family members have been implicated with some other motive and hence, the learned counsel sought to allow this appeal.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that P.W.1 is an injured witness and he was also admitted in the hospital on the same day at 09.40 p.m. and he has also suffered injury in the occurrence which was spoken to by P.W.13 medical officer. Ex.P.13 accident register was marked to prove the same. There was no reason for the injured witness to implicate the accused falsely in this case. Therefore, the evidence of the eye witness clearly proved the complicity of the accused to the crime. The trial court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and found all the accused guilty and therefore, the judgment of the trial court requires no interference.

We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the entire materials. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm )

The motive as projected by the prosecution is that A-1 and the wife of the deceased have developed illegal intimacy which was objected to by the deceased and the family members. In view of the same, there was altercation between A-1 and the deceased on 16.08.2014 which has been witnessed by P.W.1. At the time of altercation, the deceased beat A-1 and hence, A-1 proclaimed that he will eliminate the deceased one day or the other and then, he left the place. Later, after two days, when P.Ws,1, 2, 6 and the deceased were travelling in two motor cycles after having tea at around 08.00 p.m., on 18.08.2014, all the accused waylaid them. A-1 was carrying iron rod M.O.1, A-2 carrying wooden log, A-3 carrying stick with iron and A-4 carrying wooden rod and they had attacked the deceased indiscriminately. P.Ws.1,2 and 6 who are said to have been the eyewitnesses, in one voice, have stated that all of them were travelling in the motor cycle along with the deceased and at around 08.00 p.m., they have all witnessed the occurrence with the help of the light emanated from the motorcycle.

P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that A-5 and A-6 caught hold of the deceased and 7th accused caught hold of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, A-1 beat the deceased with the iron rod on his forehead, A-2 beat the deceased on the back side of his head with wooden log, A-4 caught hold of P.W.1 and A-3 beat P.W.1 on his head and A-4 beat P.W.1 on his left https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) hand. P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that A-5 and A-6 caught hold of the deceased. A-1 beat the deceased with iron rod and A-2 attacked the deceased on his head repeatedly with the wooden log. A-7 caught hold of P.W.1. A-3 attacked P.W.1 on his head and A-4 attacked P.W.1 on his hand. Similarly, P.W.6 has stated in his evidence that A-5 and A-6 caught hold of the deceased, A-1 attacked the deceased on his head with iron rod, A-7 attacked the deceased on his left shoulder with wooden rod, A-3 attacked P.W.1 on his head, A-4 beat P.W.1 on his hip and A-1 to A-7 attacked the deceased and P.W.1 repeatedly.

The entire evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 6 when carefully seen, it would indicate that P.W.1 never stated that A-4 beat him on his hip. Further, it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that A-4 and A-7 caught hold of P.W.1, whereas P.W.2 has deposed that only A-7 has caught hold of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effect that he has never stated about A-4 and A-7 caught hold of P.W.1, whereas it is the further evidence of P.W.6 that A-1 to A-7 repeatedly attacked the deceased and P.W.1. But this aspect has not been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. Though in a sudden and group attack, it is highly impossible for any witnesses to give minute details about the attacks and normally, there will be some inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, the fact remains that none of the witnesses have spoken about any attack made by any of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) accused on the legs of the deceased. The medical officer P.W.12, who has conducted postmortem, has clearly stated that there was a fracture on his leg. This aspect of the injury was never disclosed by any of the witnesses. When the eyewitnesses were in a position to give minute details about the roles played by each of the accused, and when they are able to give meticulous description about the nature of the attack made on the deceased, the failure to notice about the injury sustained by the deceased on his leg which resulted in a fracture, raises some doubt about the veracity of their evidence. It is further fortified by the fact that absolutely there is silence about the vehicles in which the witnesses and the deceased were travelling and through the light emanated from the vehicle, they have seen the occurrence and the accused at the relevant point of time. The prosecution has never made any attempt to seize the motor cycles. Even the witnesses in their evidence were not in a position to give the details about the motor cycles in which they were travelling. This also creates some doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses.

Though the motive aspect has been spoken to by the witnesses including P.W.9, who has also spoken about the motive for the occurrence, the fact remains that the motive is always a double edged weapon. It can be used either to fix any person or to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the motive is a double edged weapon. Merely on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) basis of the alleged motive, the prosecution cannot succeed in proving the specific charge of assault and killing of the deceased. It is further to be noted that though it is stated that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, there is no evidence with regard to the fact that who are all accompanied the deceased to the hospital. The accident register which was prepared when the deceased was taken to Omalur Government hospital, has not seen the light of the day. The prosecution has not even collected the copy of the accident register and has not examined the doctor who first examined the deceased. If the copy of the accident register issued in the Omalur Government Hospital has been produced, it could have thrown some light about the persons who accompanied the deceased and who brought the deceased to the hospital. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish this aspect.

It is further to be noted that the evidence of witnesses, particularly the evidence of P.W.6 would clearly indicate that when the ambulance has come to the place of occurrence, the police have also reached the spot. Therefore, it is clear that when the body of the deceased was taken in the ambulance, the police were very much present in the place of occurrence. Therefore, recording the statement Ex.P.1 for the first time at 4.00 a.m. on 19.08.2014 also creates serious doubt. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W.13, Assistant Surgeon attached to Omalur government hospital, P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital at 09.40 p.m. and in such a case, there was no reason for such huge delay in recording Ex.P.1 complaint. When the police were also very much present in the place of occurrence and the hospital is also situated nearby, the delay in recording Ex.P.1 complaint and the registration of the FIR Ex.P.6 at 04.00 a.m. on 19.08.2014 creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. When the evidence of the prosecution, namely P.W.6 would clearly show that the police have also reached the spot when the dead body was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, any statement recorded later is hit under section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, Ex.P.1 at the most could be treated only as a statement recorded during the investigation and not as a complaint.

It is further to be noted that even assuming that the prosecution has started investigation only on the basis of Ex.P.1 recorded at 04.00 a.m., in the morning, there was no reason as to why the FIR reached the court at 06.30 p.m. on 19.08.2014 with a delay of nearly 14 hours and there was no proper explanation for the same. The unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution in despatching the FIR to the Court is significant. The prosecution has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for such delay. Such unexplained delay creates a doubt as to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) the genuineness of the prosecution version of the case. It is further to be noted that it is the evidence of the eye witnesses that during such attack when the accused persons unleashed violence and attacked the deceased repeatedly and indiscriminately and also attacked the P.W.1, naturally the cloth worn by the P.W.1 also got bloodstains. However, no bloodstained cloths from the witnesses were recovered. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he has reached the hospital with the blood stained cloth and even till his statement was recorded by the police at 04.00 a.m., he was wearing the same bloodstained cloths. Therefore, the non recovery of blood stained cloths alleged worn by P.W.1 also creates a serious doubt.

Further, admittedly, P.Ws.1,2 and 6 were allegedly present in the place of occurrence when the accused persons attacked the deceased and P.W.1. But the very conduct of the witnesses creates doubt, as they have not even made any attempt to thwart such attack, which is against the normal human conduct. The evidence of the witnesses discloses that all the accused persons are relatives and the witnesses are all relatives and they are from the same village. In such a case, if any such occurrence took place, the normal conduct of the witnesses would be to save the deceased from the alleged attack. Absolutely, no such attempt whatsoever was made. This conduct also creates serious doubt about the witnesses. Further, the nature of the injury sustained by P.W.1 is simple in nature https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) and only 1 x 1 x 1 cm small cut injury and if really, the weapons as alleged by the prosecution have been used by the accused persons to attack P.W.1, certainly the cut injury would not have happened, but at least, contusion should have happened. The cut injury would normally be possible only by the use of sharp edged weapon. It is not the case of the witnesses that the sharp edged weapon was carried by the accused and the accused persons attacked the deceased and P.W.1 with sharp edged weapons. Therefore, there is a possibility of implicating the entire family members of the accused persons at a later point of time cannot also be ruled out. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that on the same day, A-1 to A-4 were arrested by the police and they were kept in the police station. Therefore, the prosecution theory that the very next day, i.e., on 19.08.2014 at 2.15 p.m,, A-1 to A-4 were arrested and the confession of A-1 was recorded and later, the material objects used by them were seized, is highly doubtful.

The above narratives creates serious doubt and suspicion about the prosecution case. Further, the eyewitnesses are interested witnesses who have already motive against the accused and therefore, there is a possibility for them implicating the entire family members of the accused by giving minute details and the same also cannot be ruled out. Further, there is no source of light available at the place of occurrence at the time https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) when the occurrence took place. It is the specific case of the prosecution that only through the light from the motor cycles, the witnesses have seen the accused, but the presence of the motor cycles at the given point of time has not been established. It is not the case of the witnesses that they have gone to the hospital in the said motor cycles. But it is the case of P.Ws.1,2 and 6 that the dead body of the deceased and the P.W.1 were taken to the hospital in an ambulance. In such a case, the motor cycles should have been available in the occurrence spot. But even when the observation mahazar and rough sketch were prepared by the investigating officer in the morning at 6.30 a.m., the investigating officer did not notice any motor cycle in the place of occurrence. Therefore, this aspect also creates doubt in the prosecution case. Therefore, we are of the view that the motive being a double edged weapon, the possibility of implicating the accused persons in the case on hand cannot be ruled out. While the motive part may lend some support to the prosecution case, in the absence of any reliable evidence pointing to the involvement of the accused persons in the crime, the case of the prosecution creates serious doubt. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and in the light of the above reasoning, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to all the accused/appellants herein. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm )

In the light of the above, this criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 11.11.2019 made in S.C.No.251 of 2016 is set aside and all the accused/appellants herein are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand discharged. (N.S.K., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 18.08.2026