sent to Tahsildhar, Taluk Office, Gudiyatham on 12.01.2017 and the endorsement seal is also found as 12.01.2017 which is prior to the incident and prior to the registration of F.I.R. which clearly shows that F.I.R. was created one for the purpose of prosecuting the appellant before the Court of law. Further, as per F.I.R., the occurrence is said to have taken place on 14.01.2017 and the F.I.R-Ex.P.8 was registered by P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police on 15.01.2017 and that the appellant was arrested on 17.02.2017. However, after lapse of one month, F.I.R. and the alteration report Ex.P12 were sent to the Court. There was no explanation for the delay in forwarding the F.I.R. and the alteration report to the Court. The unexplained delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There are material contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12 regarding the place of occurrence. They are contradicting themselves each other without corroborating each other. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the occurrence was said to have taken place in his house, whereas P.W.2 wife of P.W.1/mother of the deceased, had stated that the occurrence had taken place in the house of P.W.4. Srinivasan. P.W.4 in his evidence stated that the occurrence had taken place in his place at Bazar street. Further, all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they are all relatives and there is no independent witness in this case and the trial Judge convicted the appellant based on uncorroborated testimony of prosecution evidence. Therefore, warrants interference of this Court.
