Judgment :- Thomas, J. The three appellants were the three accused in the Sessions Court charged for the offence of S.302 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sessions Court convicted all the three of the said offence and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. It is alleged that they committed murder of one of their neighbours Pylan at about 1 p.m. on 12-5-1990. 2. Prosecution case can be summarised as follows: Third accused is the grandfather of second accused and father of first accused. They are residing on the south of deceased's house. There were skirmishes between the two neighbours over boundary dispute. On the date of occurrence, they exchanged pejoratives as one among them had cut the branch of a tamarind, tree and removed the root of the tree. Hurling of epithets at each other started in the morning and continued till noon. All the three accused came to the road in front of the house of the deceased. First accused had a crow-bar (M.O.1), second accused had an iron rod (M.O.2) and third accused had a handle of a spade (M.O.3). First accused challenged the deceased to come out of his house. Despite dissuasion from members of deceased's family, he chose to come out. Then first accused hit him with the crow bar on the neck. Deceased fell down. First accused again hit him with the crow-bar while second accused hit him with the iron rod and third accused hit him with M.O.3.One Devassy, brother of P. W.I, rushed to the scene and wrested the crow-bar from first accused. 3. P.W.I and others, who reached the scene, took the deceased to the hospital. But on the way deceased died. First Information Statement was provided by P.W.I at 5.15 p.m. at Varandarappilly Police Station. An F.I.R. was prepared as Crime No. SOl 90. First and third accused were arrested on 14-5-1990 and second accused was arrested on 18-5-1990. 4. The defence version as could be collected from the statement made by them when they were questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the following: When the deceased started cutting the root of the tamarind tree, first accused objected it. Then deceased ran to his property with an axe. First accused was then engaged in agricultural operation. Deceased beat him with the axe. Then deceased ran to his property with an axe. First accused was then engaged in agricultural operation. Deceased beat him with the axe. On hearing the hue and cry, his father third accused came and then deceased beat him also. The further hue and cry made by them attracted other people. First and third accused were admitted in the hospital, but second accused was not present at the scene at all. 5. Another First Information Statement was supplied by third accused on the same day of occurrence, on the basis of which Crime No.81/90 was registered by the police. After investigation the said crime was referred by the police as false. 6. Ext.P8 is post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.9 after conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He had six external injuries. (1) An abraded contusion 3 x 1 cm on the back. (2) A lacerated injury 8 x 2 x 1 cm on the top of the head. (3) A contusion 7 x 2.5 x 2.5 cm on the mastoid process. (4) A contusion 4 x 1.5 cm on the right shoulder. (5) An abraded contusion 0.5 x 0.5 cm. on the left forearm. (6) A fracture of the right transverse process on the cervical vertebra. On dissection of the second injury, it was found that the skull was fractured. The second injury associated with the internal fracture of the skull was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. Three witnesses have spoken to the occurrence. They are P.Ws.1 to 3. Lower court placed reliance on those three witnesses. All the three witnesses supported the prosecution version in full. 8. P. W.3 is the granddaughter of P. W.2. Third accused is the paternal uncle of P.W.2. Initially he tried to make it appear that he was compelled to give evidence against his own uncle as his conscience prompted him to do so. If he was not cross-examined, he would have appeared to be a man of very high calibre with a thirst to speak the truth even as against his own uncle. But cross-examination revealed that P. W.2 was boiling with thirsting animosity against the accused, particularly against third accused. He admitted in cross-examination that he lost one of his eyes when third accused and another person pelted acid bulb. But cross-examination revealed that P. W.2 was boiling with thirsting animosity against the accused, particularly against third accused. He admitted in cross-examination that he lost one of his eyes when third accused and another person pelted acid bulb. He further said that third accused laid a trap against him falsely and he was caught by excise people on the allegation that he manufactured illicit arrack. He had to compound the said offence by paying a penalty of Rs.1,000/-. He is sure that third accused was behind it. From the aforesaid revelations, it is very clear as to what possibly would have prompted him to come to court and speak so much against his own uncle. Evidently, it was not the qualm of his conscience, but the thirst of his vengeance, which would have impelled him to speak against the accused. The names of P. W.2 and his grand daughter P. W.3 have not even been mentioned in Ext.P1. If this is the position with regard to P. W.2, we cannot view the testimony of P. W.3 totally divorced from the shadow, which P. W.2 has cast. It would be a misfortune if the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is relied on to find a case against the three accused. Therefore, we discard the testimony of those two witnesses. 9. What remains is P.W.I. He too is closely related to the accused. But he said that he is related to the deceased also. He spoke to the prosecution version in full. That version rame on Ext. P1 First Information Statement, which was furnished on the same day, and the FIR reached the court also on the same day. These are the positive aspects of P. W.I. But there are negative aspects. P.W.1 in cross-examination admitted that he was accused in a criminal case in which the allegation was that he destroyed the house of one Lonai. However, when it was suggested to him that he was accused in CC.No.265/88 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Irinjanalakuda, his memory failed him and he could not accept it or deny it. When another criminal case, in which a person called Pylan was attacked, was cited to him alleging that he was the accused in it, P.W.1 again said that lie could not remember. However, he agreed that he was the accused in Crime No.9/88 of Varandarappilly Police Station. When another criminal case, in which a person called Pylan was attacked, was cited to him alleging that he was the accused in it, P.W.1 again said that lie could not remember. However, he agreed that he was the accused in Crime No.9/88 of Varandarappilly Police Station. But he does not even remember whether his brother Devassy was a co-accused with him in the criminal case pending before the Magistrate's Court, Irinjalakuda. P.W.1 is aged only 23. Yet he displayed such a callous failure of memory in regard to matters affecting his life vitally. 10. P.W.15 - Circle Inspector of Police in this case admitted that first and third accused were hospitalised on the same day of occurrence and they were treated in the hospital for two days as impatients. What are the injuries sustained by first and third accused? Prosecution has not given any explanation whatsoever for non-production of the documents relating to the injuries sustained by first and third accused. Even when P.W.15 was asked about them in cross-examination, prosecution was not prepared to take any step to get down the document revealing the injuries sustained by first and third accused. Learned Sessions judge surmounted this hurdle by putting the burden on the accused like this: "If first and third accused have a case that they have sustained injuries in the occurrence, they could have caused the prod action of the relevant document from the hospital." If prosecution has a case that first and third accused have sustained injuries in the occurrence, why should the prosecution suppress that fact? Learned Sessions judge observed that "non-explanation of injuries on the accused is not always fatal when such injuries are minor or superficial". While we agree with the proposition, we do not find any factual basis for such observation, for, there is no indication that the injuries sustained by first and third accused were minor or superficial A is still a riddle why the prosecution has not moved a little finger for not producing the First Information Statement furnished by third accused on the same day of occurrence. That would certainly have given the court an opportunity to see the rival version of the same incident presented to the police on the same day. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that injuries on third accused have been sufficiently explained and even the First Information Statement contained an explanation to that effect. That would certainly have given the court an opportunity to see the rival version of the same incident presented to the police on the same day. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that injuries on third accused have been sufficiently explained and even the First Information Statement contained an explanation to that effect. The explanation is this: When second accused dealt a blow on the deceased, it fell on the back of third accused by mistake. Whether the explanation is true or not, since the court is deprived of the chance to know even the nature of injuries sustained by the third accused, we are not prepared to accept the aforesaid explanation as sufficient to justify for suppression of those important materials. According to the appellant's counsel, the documents relating to the wounds of the two accused were suppressed with the fear that, if they come to lime light the serious injuries on the person of those accused would be un adjustably incompatible with the prosecution story. That apart what about the injuries sustained by first accused? It is very strange, if not incomprehensible, that the prosecution has strained a lot in suppressing such materials. Merely examining three eyewitnesses is of no use for the criminal court to come to the conclusion as to how the incident had commenced, developed and ended. Even to test the veracity of the testimony of eyewitnesses the materials relating to the injuries of the accused sustained during the occurrence would be indispensable. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not persuaded to place reliance on the testimony of P.W.I. Consequently, we are not disposed to accept the prosecution version as the true version regarding the occurrence in this case. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the lower court. We acquit all the appellants. We direct that they be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in any other case.