anything about the injuries caused on Sumathi. Thus, the evidence of this witness even in chief examination is not in tune with the charges. Further, in chief examination itself, P.W.1 has stated that he knew the names of both the accused. But, in the complaint which was given at 09.00 p.m. on 24.08.2010, he has mentioned the name of the 1st accused alone. He has further stated that the other assailant was an identifiable person whose name was not known to him. Had it been true that the 2nd accused was the other assailant, certainly, he would have mentioned his name in Ex.P.1. This doubt in the evidence of P.W.1 has not been explained away. The other witnesses have stated that they saw these two accused going in the motorcycle. These evidences, in our considered view, would not in any manner go to conclusively prove that it was these accused, who caused the death of the deceased. The motive for the occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution. The First Information Report had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 06.00 a.m. on 25.04.2008, that was after the demise of the deceased. There is no explanation for the same also. Thus, there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution and therefore, in our considered view, it is not safe to sustain the conviction of the accused on the evidence of P.W.1 and the other evidences about which we have made elaborate discussion hereinabove. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.
