Judgment : T. Jayarama Chouta, J. These three appellants who were accused Nos.2,3 and 5 in Sessions Case No.203 of 1988 before the Court of Session, Madurai Division, Madurai and who have been convicted under Secs.302 , 324 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced A-2 to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year against A-3 and A-5 have filed this appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence. 2. They were tried along with other ten accused on various charges. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The accused and P.Ws.1 to 7 belong to Kalimettupattai, Uthamapalayam. In that Village, there are two branches in Pallar caste viz., Ammapallar and Aathapallar. P.Ws.1 to 7 belong to Ammapallar branch. Accused No.l originally belonged to Ammapallar branch, and, subsequently, he joined Aathapallar branch. There was amity between these two branches. 4. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the sons of accused No.1. Accused No.5 is the son of accused No.6. Accused No.7 is the son-in-law of accused No.1. Accused No. 13 is the wife of accused No.1. 5. Five months prior to the occurrence, there was a dispute between Ammapallars and Aathapallars over taking water to irrigate their fields. The dispute was reported to the police and the police submitted charge sheet in Uthamapalayam Court. Both parties were fined Rs.25 each in that case. 6. On 26.3.1987, P.W.2 carried bricks from Uthamapalayam to Kuchanoor in tractor. After unloading the said bricks, he was returning via. Chinnamanoor. At that place, accused No.9 put a bundle of bamboo sticks in the tractor even though P.W.2 objected. With reluctance, P.W.2 carried the said bamboo sticks to Uthamapalayam. When P.W.2 demanded the hire charges from A-9, A-9 refused to pay the said charges. There were some wordy quarrels between them and P.W.2 abused A-9 by using his caste name. However, they were separated by one Ramaraj. 7. On the same day, at about 6.30 p.m., P.W.2 was in his house. It was the prosecution case that at that time, all the accused armed with knives, sticks, vel sticks and stones came to his house and shouted at him to come out of the house stating that they would not leave without killing him. Out of fear, P.W.2 bolted the door and remained inside. It was the prosecution case that at that time, all the accused armed with knives, sticks, vel sticks and stones came to his house and shouted at him to come out of the house stating that they would not leave without killing him. Out of fear, P.W.2 bolted the door and remained inside. On hearing the shouting of P.W.1, P.W.4 and the deceased Krishnan went there with sticks and started throwing stones on them. At that time, A-2 shouted to stab and kill all those who come for the rescue of P.W.2. So saying, A-2 stabbed Krishnan with vel sticks on his right flank. He also beat him on the back of his neck. The said beating was warded off by Krishnan and it landed on the left thumb. P.W.1 intervened. A-5 beat him with vel stick on the right side of his forehead. A-7 threw stone on his right fore arm. P.W.3, aunt of P.W.1 intervened and she was beaten with stick by A-6 on her upper lip, and A-3 cut her with aruval near her left hand. When P.W.3 intervened, A-3 cut him with an aruval in his left thumb. He warded off the said injury which fell on his thumb. P.W.1s mother P.W.5 intervened and she was stabbed by A-10; causing injury over her left eye. When P.W.6, mother of P.W.2 intervened, A-8 beat her with sticks. A-4 beat through stick on the head of P.W.7. A-11 stabbed P.W.7 with soori knife on her right thigh. A-6 beat her with stick on her left wrist. A-13 threw stone on her left hand. With a view to escaping from there, P.W.2 opened the door and started running from there. At that time, A-1, A-6, A-9, and A-12 assaulted him with bamboo sticks. P.W.2 also retaliated and some to the accused sustained injuries. P.W.11 and one Bose intervened. The accused ran away from the said place. Krishnan had fallen down after receiving the injuries. P.W.1 and others shifted him in a bullock-cart to Government Hospital, Uthamapalayam. On the way he died. The Doctor P.W.8 found him dead on 26.3.1987 at 7.15 p.m. andhe noticed the following injuries: “1. A stab wound 16 cm from the midline and 23 cm from right nipple 4 cm × 3 cm at right upper abdomen and omentum protruding through the wound. 2. On the way he died. The Doctor P.W.8 found him dead on 26.3.1987 at 7.15 p.m. andhe noticed the following injuries: “1. A stab wound 16 cm from the midline and 23 cm from right nipple 4 cm × 3 cm at right upper abdomen and omentum protruding through the wound. 2. An abrasion 1/2 cm × 1/4 cm over the dorsal aspect of the left thumb. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm × 1 cm × bone deep at the right parietal region.” 8. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 after leaving the dead body of Krishnan at Government Hospital went to Uthamapalayam Police station and gave statement before P.W.13, the Head Constable at 7.30 p.m. The said statement was attested by P.W.2. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered in Cr.No.78 of 1987 under Secs.147 , 148, 323, 324, 336 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.13 prepared express reports and sent the complaint and the report to the concerned authorities. On the same day, at 8.15 p.m., A-4 appeared before P.W.13 and gave statement which was recorded as per Ex.P-24. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered in Cr.No.79 of 1987 under Secs.147, 148, 323, 324, 336 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W.13 prepared first information report, Ex.P-26 and submitted the first information report and the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He seized from P.W.1 M.Os.12 and 13 Banian and Dhoti. Similarly, M.O.4 shirt was seized from P.W.2. At 8.45 p.m., P.W.7 appeared before the police and she was sent to the Hospital for treatment, with medical memo. At 9.30 p.m. he inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.12 and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P18. 9. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam received intimation regarding this case on 26.3.1987. He went to the police station on 27.3.1987 at 3 a.m. and received the express report concerned in both the cases and took up the case for investigation. He seized stones and brick pieces under mahazar Ex.P19 in the presence of P.W.12. He prepared rough sketch, Ex.P-32. He went to the mortuary and conducted inquest over the dead body of Krishnan from 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 He sent intimation to Uthamapalayam Police. a.m. and prepared inquest report, Ex.P-31. He seized stones and brick pieces under mahazar Ex.P19 in the presence of P.W.12. He prepared rough sketch, Ex.P-32. He went to the mortuary and conducted inquest over the dead body of Krishnan from 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 He sent intimation to Uthamapalayam Police. a.m. and prepared inquest report, Ex.P-31. He searched the house of A-2 in the presence of P.W.12 and seized M.O.2 vel stick under search list, Ex.P-20. Similarly, from the house of A-1, he seized M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.5 bamboo stick and M.O.6 stick under Ex.P-21. From the house of A-9, M.O.3 broken sticks were seized under Ex.P-22. He arrested the accused 5 and 12 at Uthamapalayam bus stand and sent them for remand. 10. P.W.8, who is the Doctor, had examined P.W.5 on 26.3.1987 at 7.30 p.m. and noticed simple injuries and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P-2. He has also examined P.W.4 on the same day at 7.40 p.m. and found some simple injuries which he has noticed in Ex.P-4. P.W.3 also was treated by the Doctor at 8 p.m. and wound certificate, Ex.P-5 was issued. At 8.10 p.m., P.W.6 was treated for some simple injuries and the Doctor has issued certificate Ex.P-6. At 8.20 p.m. the Doctor examined P.W.2 who had received abrasion on his right knee and the Doctor issued wound certificate, Ex.P-7. 11. On the same day, between 8.45 p.m. and 10 p.m., the Doctor examined A-2, A-5, A-3, A-6, A-1, A-13 and A-4 and noticed the injuries and issued wound certificates Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-14. 12. After inquest, P.W. 16, handed over the dead body to P.W.10, the Police Constable with a requisition to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem examination. P.W.9, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Uthamapalayam, on the basis of the requisition, Ex.P-15 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Krishnan at 12.15 p.m. and noticed the following injuries: “1. Incised wound 4 cm × 3 cm × depth entering to the abdominal cavity. Omentum protruding out through the wound. 2. Lacerated wound over the right parietal eminence of the head (skull) 5 cm × 1/2 cm × bone deep. 3. An abrasion 1/2 cm × 1/2 cm over the left thumb.” He has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury on the basis of liver and colon and death would have occurred 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy. 3. An abrasion 1/2 cm × 1/2 cm over the left thumb.” He has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury on the basis of liver and colon and death would have occurred 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy. He has issued Ex.P-16, post-mortem certificate. On 27.3.1987 at 2.30 p.m., P.W.9 examined P.W.7 and noticed two simple injuries on her person and issued wound certificate, Ex.P-17. 13. After receiving the Chemical Examiner’s report and the Serologists report as per Exs.P-29 and P.30 and after completing investigation, P.W.17, submitted charge sheet on 23.6.1988. 14. The matter being committed to the learned Sessions Judge by the Judicial II class Magistrate, Uthamapalaiyam. The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai framed 16 different charges against all the 13 accused, the main charge being under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Krishnan. All the accused pleaded not guilty. 15. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-33 were got marked and M.Os.1 to 14 were produced before the court. No defence witness was examined. However, they got marked Exs.D-1 to D-3. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused in their statements under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied all the said circumstances. The defence of the accused was that it was the prosecution witnesses who have attacked and caused injuries on some of the accused and the accused have not committed any offence. 16. The learned Sessions Judge, after conclusion of the trial, by judgment dated 23.12.1988 convicted the appellants No.1 (A-2) under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of Krishnan and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life; he convicted appellant No.2 (A-3) under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon to Smt.Avudaiyammal (P.W.3) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and, he convicted appellant No.3 (A-5) under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon to Marimuthu, P.W.1 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction and sentence are the subject matter in this appeal. 17. Heard Mr.A.Selvam learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr.Syed Fasuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. The conviction and sentence are the subject matter in this appeal. 17. Heard Mr.A.Selvam learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr.Syed Fasuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. They took us through the evidence of the witnesses and the relevant documents produced in the case. 18. Mr.Selvan, learned counsel contended that the Court below was not justified in convicting the appellants on the same evidence which has been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge as against the other accused and acquitted them. He has pointed out that there was no motive for the appellants to commit the said crime and the motive put forward by the prosecution has not been proved and the motive was an after thought and there was a group clash among rival communities in which several persons on either side have been injured in a confused riot and melee with pelting of stones and persons running helter-skelter when both the sides have given reports almost simultaneously and have been treated in the hospital, the trial court was not justified in accepting a false and tutored version of the prosecution to convict the appellants. He also submitted that the genesis of the occurrence itself was doubtful and there was no reliable evidence to show now the incident originated. He further submitted that the lower court ought to have accepted the defence version and acquitted the appellants also. 19. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge as against the appellants is just and legal and it is on the basis of the version of injured witnesses as well as independent witnesses. He pointed out that there was motive for the appellants to commit the said crime and the learned Sessions Judge has given maximum benefit to the defence by acquitting ten accused. As against the convicted accused i.e., the present appellants, there is convincing evidence and the learned Sessions Judge has after considering all the aspects come to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty and there is no ground to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. On these grounds, he argued that there is no merit in this appeal and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 20. On these grounds, he argued that there is no merit in this appeal and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 20. Let us consider the present case on the basis of the materials placed before the court as well as in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides. 21. There is no dispute that the deceased Krishnan met with a homicidal death as is evidenced from the evidence of Doctor P.W.9 and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-16. Similarly, the evidence of Doctor P.W.8 and the wound certificates Exs.P-2 to P-7 go to show that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have received injuries on 26.3.1987. The evidence of Doctor, P.W.9 and the wound certificate Ex.P-17 proved that P.W.7 also had received injuries. All the injuries found on these witnesses were simple. Similarly, the Doctor, P.W.8 examined A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-13 between 8.45 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. and issued wound certificates Exs.P-13 and 14. 22. According to the prosecution, on 26.3.1987, P.W.2 who belong to Ammapallar branch carried bricks from Uthamapalayam to Kuchannor in tractor and unloaded the said bricks and he was returning via Chinnamanoor and at that place, A-9 put a bundle of bamboo sticks in his tractor in spite of objection by P.W.2. At Uthamapalayam, when P.W.2 asked hire charge from A-9, he refused to pay the said charge and there was some exchange of words between them and in that, P.W.2 had used some bad words calling the caste name at A-9 which was the immediate provocation for the incident in the evening at 6.30 p.m. We are not prepared to believe the version of P.W.2. He has stated that on 26.3.1987, he carried bricks in a tractor from Uthamapalayam to Kuchanoor, unloaded the same and was returning via Chinnamanoor and at that time, A-9 put a bundle of Bamboo sticks in the tractor and he objected the same when A-9 persisted and hence, he carried it to Uthamapalayam and when he asked for hire charges, A-9 refused to pay the said hire charges and there was wordy quarrel and P.W.2 abused him calling his caste name and that was the cause for the present incident in the evening. In the cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that he did not know to whom the tractor belonged and he did not know who was the driver of the tractor and he did not know personally the loading of bamboo sticks at Chinnamanoor, the tractor driver did not ask hire charges from A-9. He has further admitted that their people were not aggrieved because of the refusal of A-9 to pay him hire charges. That being so, we are unable to believe the version of P.W.2. Hence, we have to hold that there was no immediate provocation for the accused to initiate the attack on the prosecution witnesses. 23. Now coming to the main incident which took place on the evening of that day, it is true that the injured witnesses as well as P.W.11 speak about the incident. But, how far the evidence can be believed by the court. P.W.1, the injured witness who lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 has stated that the police took his signature in the blank paper. According to him, he has given complaint with the police on 26.3.1987 at 7.30 p.m. and it cannot be true because all the injured witnesses were in the hospital between 7.15 p.m. and 8.20 p.m. They cannot be present simultaneously in two places. Hence, according to us, Ex.P-1 was a fabricated document which was created to suit the case of the prosecution. Similarly, A-4 also has give the complaint at 8.15 p.m. before the police. He has also admitted that the police took his signature in the blank paper. The injured accused were seven in number, and they were in the hospital between 8.45 p.m. to 10 p.m. 24. Both sides have not come before the Court with true version. We are unable to find out how the incident has started. Since the version given by both sides cannot be taken as truthful versions, we are left to our imagination how the incident has started, whether it was the accused who have initiated the incident or is it the prosecution witnesses who have started attacking the accused. Even on the side of accused, seven persons have received injuries. The prosecution witnesses have not come with true version of the case. Seven accused have received injuries, most of them on the head. Even on the side of accused, seven persons have received injuries. The prosecution witnesses have not come with true version of the case. Seven accused have received injuries, most of them on the head. The prosecution has not explained while giving evidence before the court as to how these injuries on the accused have been caused. In a murder case, a non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version. In the present case, there is a defence version which has explained the injuries on the person of the accused which renders probable of the defence case and hence, it throws doubt on the prosecution case. Moreover having regard to the facts and circumstances in the present case, it is difficult to separate the truth from falsehood since the truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed up that in the present process of suppression, the court will have to reconstruct an absolute new case for the prosecution. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 25. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we allow this criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit them. We further direct that the appellants all be set at liberty forthwith, if they are in custody and they are not required for any other cases. If they are on bail, their bail bounds shall stand cancelled.