JUDGMENT (Per S. Jagadeesan, J.) The appellants herein are accused 1, 2, 4 to 9 in S.C. No. 131 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. The first appellant A-1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one' Dharuman and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The first appellant A-1 was further found guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the injuries on P.W.1 and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the same. He was also found guilty for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury on P.W. 2 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. The second appellant herein A-2 was charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased Dharuman and was found guilty thereon. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence. He was further charged for the offence under Section 324 on two counts for causing injuries on P.W. 2 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. The third appellant A-4 was charged for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury on P.W. 1 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. A-5 - the fourth appellant herein was found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury on P.W. 1 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. A-6 - the fifth appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on two counts for causing injury on P.W. 1 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default •to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. A-7 to A-9 - the appellants 6 to 8 herein were found guilty for the offence under Section 323 on two counts for causing injuries of P.Ws. 1, and 2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count, in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 100/- in default •to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. A-7 to A-9 - the appellants 6 to 8 herein were found guilty for the offence under Section 323 on two counts for causing injuries of P.Ws. 1, and 2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count, in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. One Selvaraj the third accused in this case, who was also tried along with these appellants, was acquitted by trial Court. No appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of the said Selvaraj - A-3. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 Ayyadurai, P.W. 2 Muthammal the mother of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 Smt. Aparanji the maternal aunt of P.W. 1 are residing at Door No.2, Kasi Viswanathar Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. As per the evidence of P.W.1, there is enmity between the family of P.W. 1 and the family of A-1. A-1 to A-9 are admittedly brothers and cousins. On 17-5-1988 at about 11.30 p.m., A-1 and A-2 came with two constables attached to R-3 Police Station and took one Bonda (a) Viswanathan-the son of P.W. 3. At that time, P.W. 1, his brother Dharuman (the deceased), and his mother P.W. 2 were in the house along with P.W. 3 and one Smt. Amsa another maternal aunt of P.W. 1, P.W. 1 questioned P.W. 2 as to why his cousin brother Bonda (a) Viswanathan has been taken to custody by the Police. P.W. 2 pleaded ignorance. 3. So, P.W. 1 along with his brother Dharuman the deceased, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and another maternal aunt Smt. Amsa went to the house of A-1 to question as to why the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan was taken to custody: When they were walking along Subba Reddy Street where the house of A-1 and A-2 was situated, A-1 and A-2 came there armed with knife accompanied by A-3 with a stick: A-4 with an iron pipe: A-5 with a casuarina Stick: A-6 with a small stick and A-7 to A-9 were unarmed. The deceased Dharuman was going about 2 feet ahead of the others. A-1 stabbed him on his stomach and left thigh with the knife MO-1. The deceased Dharuman was going about 2 feet ahead of the others. A-1 stabbed him on his stomach and left thigh with the knife MO-1. While stabbing the deceased, he uttered the following words: *(Sic Matter in other language) A-2 stabbed the deceased on his left buttock and on the left eyebrow with the knife MO-2. Thereafter, both A-1 and A-2 indiscriminately stabbed the deceased. P.W. 2 tried to prevent A-1 and A-2. At that time, A-1 stabbed P.W. 2 on her forehead. When she tried to prevent the attack, she also sustained injury on her right hand. A-2 cut P.W. 2 on her right thigh and back side of her l1ead. On seeing this, P.W. 1 intervened. While so, A-1 cut P.W. 1 on his left forehand and A-4 beat him with the iron pipe on the back of his head. A-5 also beat him with the stick on his left eyebrow. A-7 to A-9 beat P.W. 1 with the hands and A-6 beat him with the stick. A-3 attempted to beat P.W. 2, but it accidentally fell on the head of A-6. On seeing this, P.W. 3 and another maternal aunt of P.W.1 left the place out of fear. 4. P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and narrated the incident. P.W. 16 the Sub-Inspector of Police at R-3 Police Station recorded the statement from P.W.1, which is Ex. P-1 and sent the injured to the hospital. 5. P.W.16 at the midnight of 17/18-5-1988 received Ex. P-1 and registered the same as Crime No. 1238 of 1988 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He also prepared the express report Ex. P-27 and forwarded the same to the higher authorities. P.W. 17 the Inspector of Police, (in-charge) on information, went to R-3 Police Station at 2.40 a.m. on 18-5-1988. He received the copy of the First Information Report in Crime No. 1238 of 1988 from P.W. 16 and took up further investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P-8 the observation mahazaar at 3 a.m. Thereafter, at about 3.35 a.m., he seized the bloodstained earth MO-7 under mahazaar Ex. P-6 attested by P.W. 7 and one Murugesan. He also seized MO-8 the sample earth under Ex. P-7 attested by P.W. 7. Thereafter, he prepared the rough sketch Ex. P-28. P-8 the observation mahazaar at 3 a.m. Thereafter, at about 3.35 a.m., he seized the bloodstained earth MO-7 under mahazaar Ex. P-6 attested by P.W. 7 and one Murugesan. He also seized MO-8 the sample earth under Ex. P-7 attested by P.W. 7. Thereafter, he prepared the rough sketch Ex. P-28. He also recovered MOs-3 and 4 the bloodstained clothes of P.W.1 under the mahazaar Ex. P-29 at about 6 a.m. at R-3 Police Station. At about 6.20 a.m., he seized MO-5 and MO-6 clothes of P.W. 2 under mahazaar Ex. P-30. He held inquest between 8 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. Ex. P-31 is the inquest report. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2. Subsequently, the body of the deceased was entrusted to P.W. 13 the Constable for postmortem. At 3 a.m., MO-9, MO-10 and MO-11 the bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered under Ex. P-9 attested by P.W. 8 and one Ganapathy. 6. The doctor P.W. 14 received Ex. P-24 the requisition from P.W. 17 - the Inspector of Police to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He commenced autopsy at 4 p.m. and found the following injuries on the deceased: (i) Upper eyelid on the left side was found contused. (ii) Horizontal abrasion 2 x 1 cms. over the left side of forehead, midway between the eyebrow and hairline. (iii) Vertical abrasion 2 x 1 cms. over the left temple. (iv) Transverse incised wound 1 cm. below wound No.3 and 0.7 cms. out to the outer canthus of left eye, directed outwards, 1.5 x 0.5 cms. muscle deep with contusion of the edges. (v) Obliquely placed incised wound over the outer aspect of right elbow 1.5 x 0.5 cms., muscle deep with contusion of the edges. (vi) Obliquely placed three parallel scratch abrasions each 2 cms. in length, 0.5 cms., apart over the inner border of middle of right forearm. (vii) Vertical abrasion 4 x 0.7 cms. over the inner border of lower half of right forearm. (viii) Obliquely placed spindle shaped stab wound over the outer and lower quadrant of right gluteal region 2.5 x 0.7 cms. with contusion of its upper and directed forwards to a depth of 3 cms. (ix) Transverse incised wound over the outer aspect of upper third of left thigh 2 x 0.7 cms. muscle creep with contusion of its edges. (viii) Obliquely placed spindle shaped stab wound over the outer and lower quadrant of right gluteal region 2.5 x 0.7 cms. with contusion of its upper and directed forwards to a depth of 3 cms. (ix) Transverse incised wound over the outer aspect of upper third of left thigh 2 x 0.7 cms. muscle creep with contusion of its edges. (x) Vertical incised wound 1.3 x 0.6 cms. muscle deep over the outer aspect of praximal phalanx of left index finger. (xi) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm. over the nuckle of left middle finger. (xii) Abrasion 2 x 2 cms. over the back of the left elbow. (xiii) Abrasion 2 x 2 cms. over outer aspect of left elbow. (xiv) Transverse incised wound over the middle posterior fold of left armpit 4 x 0.75 cms. muscle deep with contusion of its edges directed inwards. (xv) Obliquely placed gaping stab wound 2.5 X 0.7 cms. over the front of abdomen on the right side, the centre of the wound being 6 cms. below the umbilicus. The upper end of the wound is 5 cms. from the midline and the lower and of the wound was 3.5 cms. from the midline. The margin and ends were sharp and the upper end and the margins were contused. (xvi) Vertically placed three parallel scratch abrasions 1.5 cms. each 5 cms., apart over the back of right shoulder. (xvii) Vertical gaping incised wound tapering downwards over the back of left shoulder 2 x 0.7 cms. muscle deep. (xviii) On opening the abdomen, contusion of the anterial abdominal wall along the edges and ends of wound No. 15. (xix) Oblique punctured wound of 2.5 cms. into the luman of terminal part of small intestine, 13 cms. from the ileocaceal junction 2.5 x 0.7 cms. each. (xx) Through and through obliquely placed punctured wounds of the small intestine at two places, 152 cms. and 225 cms. respectively from the ileo-caceal junction 2.5 x 0.7 cms. each. (xxi) Through and through punctured wound of 2.5 x 0.7 cms. of the mesentery with retroparitoneal contusion over an area of 6 x 4 cms. of the pre and para vertebral tissues at the level of bifurcation of the abdominal aorta. (xxii) Abdominal cavity contained 500cc. of fluid blood. respectively from the ileo-caceal junction 2.5 x 0.7 cms. each. (xxi) Through and through punctured wound of 2.5 x 0.7 cms. of the mesentery with retroparitoneal contusion over an area of 6 x 4 cms. of the pre and para vertebral tissues at the level of bifurcation of the abdominal aorta. (xxii) Abdominal cavity contained 500cc. of fluid blood. He has given the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury to the abdomen i.e., injury No. 15 and the corresponding injuries 18 to 21, which are necessarily fatal. Injuries 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 18 to 21 are grievous in nature and injuries 1 to 3, 6, 7, 11, to 13 and 16 are simple in nature. 7. On 18-5-1988 at 9 p.m., P.W.17arrested A-6 at Ashok Pillar. On 19-5-1988, P.W. 18the concerned Inspector of Police took charge of the investigation. A-1 surrendered before the Court. On 23-5-1988, P.W. 18 got the custody of A-1. On 24-5-1988, between 11 and 11.30 a.m., A-1 gave the confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P-22 attested by P.W. 12 and one Karim. Pursuant to the confessional statement, A-1 took the police to Kuppaiya Chetti Street, West Mambalam, Chennai and from a bush situated therein, he took out MO-1 and handed over the same. MO-1 was seized under mahazaar Ex. P-23 attested byP.W.12 and one Karim. Thereafter, A-1 was handed over to judicial custody. P.W. 18 at 6 p.m. on 24-5-1988, arrested A-8 near Udayam Theatre. On information P.W. 18, arrested A-7 at Rajaji Street, Chrompet. On information, furnished by A-7, P.W. 18 went to Karnalam village at Chingleput at about 8.15 p.m. and arrested A-9 and produced i.e., A-7 to A-9 for remand on the next day. On 26-5-1988 at 6.15 a.m., P.W.18 arrested A-2 at Central Station, Madras. Immediately after his arrest, A-2 has given a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P-20 and took the police to the junction of Mambalam Ellaiyamman Koil and Eswaran Koil streets and took out MO-2 knife from a bush on the southern side of the tank. MO-2 was seized under the mahazaar Ex: P-21 attested by P.W. 11 and one Mani. On 27-5-1998 P.W. 18 arrested A-3 at 4 p.m. at Porur Bus Stop. On the next day, he was sent for remand. MO-2 was seized under the mahazaar Ex: P-21 attested by P.W. 11 and one Mani. On 27-5-1998 P.W. 18 arrested A-3 at 4 p.m. at Porur Bus Stop. On the next day, he was sent for remand. P. W. 18 sent the Material Objects to XVII Judicial Magistrate Court with a requisition for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against A-1 to A-9 on 23-8-1988. 8. The trial Judge, after consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, by his judgment dated 18-8-1989 in S.C. No. 131 of 1988, had found A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-9 guilty for the offences as stated above. A-3 was totally acquitted. As against the same, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 to 3 alongwith the deceased and Smt. Amsa another sister of P.W. 2 went to the house of A-1 and A-2 to question them as to why Bonda (a) Viswanathan, s/o P.W. 3 was taken by the police. Near the house of A-1 and A-2, the incident took place. During the incident due to the attack of A-1 and, A-2, the deceased Dharuman died and other P.Ws. also sustained injuries. When the occurrence took place in front of the house of A-1 and A-2, undoubtedly the aggressors are the prosecution parties. Hence, the attack by the accused party is nothing but by way of private defence. This is supported by the fact that when A-6 went to the Police Station to give a complaint. P.W. 16 did not receive the same and register a case, which fact is admitted by P.W. 16 in his cross-examination. Had the complaint given by A-6 been recorded or received, and a case been registered against the prosecution party also, then the truth might have come to light. The failure on the part of the prosecution to register the complaint given by A-6 now forces the Court to have one sided picture alone and as such, the prosecution case as put as forward by P.Ws. 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. Equally, when A-6 was an injured witness, the explanation put forward by the prosecution for the said injury also cannot be accepted. 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. Equally, when A-6 was an injured witness, the explanation put forward by the prosecution for the said injury also cannot be accepted. It is the duty of the police officials to register the complaint and investigate the same. The failure to register the complaint given by A-6 against the prosecution party throws considerable doubt with regard to the genuineness of the conduct of the police authorities in investigating the crime without any bias. Further, it is the admitted case the prosecution that A-2 had given a complaint against the son of P.W. 3 - Bonda (a) Viswanathan, which was registered as Crime No. 1237 of 1988 under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by P.W. 15 the Head Constable at 11 p.m. on 17-5-1988. Only pursuant to the said complaint given by A-2. Bonda (a) Viswanathan, s/o P.W 3 was arrested. The prosecution party went to the house of A-1 and A-2 to question their conduct in giving the complaint against the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan. Hence, the prosecution party being the aggressors, A-1 and A-2 are entitled for the benefit of exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the benefit of the lesser sentence can be awarded. 10. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side contended that it is true that A-2 gave a complaint against the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan on the night of 17-5-1988, pursuant to which, he was arrested by the police attached to R-3 Police Station. P.Ws. 1 to 3 along with the deceased Dharuman and Smt. Amsa went to the house of A-1 and A-2 to ascertain the cause for the complaint against the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan. While the prosecution party nearing the house of A-1 and A-2, as stated by P.W. 1, and corroborated by P.Ws. 2 and 3 about the accused armed with knife and stick, barring A-7 to A-9, came and attacked the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously and P.Ws. 1 and 2 have also sustained injuries. The prosecution has also properly explained the injury on A-6. 2 and 3 about the accused armed with knife and stick, barring A-7 to A-9, came and attacked the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously and P.Ws. 1 and 2 have also sustained injuries. The prosecution has also properly explained the injury on A-6. In the absence of any evidence that the occurrence actually took place either in front of the house of A-1 and A-2 or at least very close to their house and the prosecution party were armed with any weapons, the theory of defence that the prosecution party are the aggressors and the accused party acted only on self defence cannot at all be accepted. The evidence of the doctor P.W. 14 reveals that the deceased sustained 21 injuries all over the body and this itself is a clear proof of the brutal attack by A-1 and A-2 on the deceased and as such, this is a clear case where the prosecution has established the guilt of A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Dharuman. 11. We have carefully considered the contentions of both the Counsels and also analysed the evidence let in by the prosecution. From the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants, it is clear that the occurrence on the midnight of 17/18-5-1988 is an admitted fact. Hence, our task has been considerably reduced to consider only the nature of the offence that had been committed by the A-1 and A-2 and as to whether it falls under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or falls within anyone of the exceptions sunder Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.1 and P.W. 3 is the mother of Bonda (a) Viswanathan against whom A-2 has given a complaint at R-3 Police Station at 11 p.m. on 17-5-1988 and pursuant to which, the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan was taken to custody, which is the root cause for the present occurrence in this case. The gist of P.W. l's evidence is that on 17-5-1988 his cousin brother Bonda (a) Viswanathan, sip P.W. 3 was taken custody by the police, who was accompanied by A-1 and A-2. The gist of P.W. l's evidence is that on 17-5-1988 his cousin brother Bonda (a) Viswanathan, sip P.W. 3 was taken custody by the police, who was accompanied by A-1 and A-2. He questioned his mother P.W. 2 as the cause for taking the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan to custody. P.W. 2 has pleaded ignorance and not knowing as two why the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan cousin brother of P.W.1 was taken to custody by the police. P.Ws. 1 to 3 along with the deceased went to ascertain the cause of arrest of the said Bonda (a) Viswanathan from A-1 and A-2 themselves. Perhaps, they may be thinking that it is better to get the necessary particulars from the horse's mouth. While they were walking in Subba Reddy Street, in which the houses of A-1 and A-2 and others were situated. A-1 and A-2 came to the street from their house armed with knife and attacked the deceased Dharuman. In the course of the same transaction, while P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to prevent the attack on the deceased, they also sustained injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. P.W. 1 went to the police station and gave the First Information Report Ex. P-l, which was recorded by P.W. 16. Thereafter, the investigation started, which was continued byP.W.17andP.W.18. The material portion of the evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Admittedly A-6 sustained injury, which had been explained by the prosecution stating that while A-3 attempted to hit P.W. 2 the same fell on A-6. 13. We have carefully perused the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 - the injured and eye-witnesses. In the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses, there is no suggestion that P.Ws.1 to 3 or the deceased or the another maternal aunt of P.Ws.1 to 3 or the deceased or the another maternal aunt of P.W. 1- Smt. Amsa were armed with any weapon. There is also no suggestion in the cross-examination that the prosecution party reached the house of A-1 and A-2 and questioned them either with regard to the reason for the arrest of Bonda. (a) Viswanathan or the nature of complaint given by A-1 and A-2 or as to whether Bonda (a) Viswanathan had been arrested only at their instance. There is also no suggestion in the cross-examination that the prosecution party reached the house of A-1 and A-2 and questioned them either with regard to the reason for the arrest of Bonda. (a) Viswanathan or the nature of complaint given by A-1 and A-2 or as to whether Bonda (a) Viswanathan had been arrested only at their instance. P.W. 17 the Investigation Officer, in his evidence, had clearly stated that the distance between the house of A-1 and the place of occurrence is nearly 40 feet. This would reveal that A-1 and A-2 along with others proceeded in advance towards P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the deceased, before ever they reach the house of A-1 and A-2. In the absence of any suggestion, as stated already, to the effect that any of the P.Ws. 1 to 3 or the deceased armed with any deadly weapon much less any weapon, A-1 to A-9 formed a group and proceeded in advance to attack the prosecution party. When that be the case, we find it very difficult to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution party are the aggressors and the accused party acted only in self defence. 14. Yet another reason for us to come to the said conclusion is the manner in which the deceased was attacked. Of course, the learned Senior Counsel draw our attention of Ex. P-l and contended that there is no statement to the effect that A-1 and A-2 stabbed the deceased indiscriminately. In the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, they have stated that A-1 and A-2 had indiscriminately stabbed the deceased, which is a development in the story of the prosecution. The omission to mention about the indiscriminate stabbing of the deceased by A-1 and A-2 in Ex. P-l and the further development in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the same will be contrary to each other and the said contradiction will be a vital one so far as the injuries caused on the deceased is concerned. 15. On consideration of the above contentions of the learned Senior Counsel we would like to point out that the First Information Report Ex. P-l came into existence immediately after the occurrence. Almost, it contains the specific overtacts on the accused. 15. On consideration of the above contentions of the learned Senior Counsel we would like to point out that the First Information Report Ex. P-l came into existence immediately after the occurrence. Almost, it contains the specific overtacts on the accused. When a group of persons attacked the deceased, naturally there are chances and possibilities for some contradiction. It is for the Court to consider as to whether such contradictions established by the defence would be fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, as already stated, the occurrence is admitted. When the occurrence is admitted, the statement in Ex. P-1 corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly establishes that A-1 and A-2 alone were armed with knives, The deceased sustained as many as 21 injuries. The doctor has stated that injuries 15 and the corresponding, injuries 18 to 21 necessarily fatal. Injury Nos. 9 and 15 and corresponding injuries 18 to 21 are possible by a sharp edged weapon like MO-1. Injury Nos. 4 and 8 are possible by a sharp edged weapon like MO-2. Injury Nos. 5, 10, 14 and 17 also could be caused by a sharp edged weapon. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that these injuries could have been caused only by A-1 and A-2, who were armed with knives MOs-1 and 2. As we have already found that the prosecution party cannot be said to be the aggressors, we have no hesitation in finding that A-1 and A-2 have deliberately attacked the deceased and caused the death of the deceased Dharuman and thereby the prosecution had clearly made out a case against them for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if it is held tha t no specific overtact as to the fatal injury against A-1 and A-2 is not made out, we are undoubtedly clear that both can be found guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Coming to the other injuries on P.Ws. 1 and 2, the doctor P.W. 5 at Government Peripheral Hospital, K.K. Nagar examined P.W. 1 on 18-5-1988 at 1.15 a.m. and issued the Wound Certificate Ex. P-4. He found the following injuries on him: (i) Lacerated wound 3 cm. in length over the occipital region of the scalp right side. (ii) Contusion 2" x I" just later alto the left eye. P-4. He found the following injuries on him: (i) Lacerated wound 3 cm. in length over the occipital region of the scalp right side. (ii) Contusion 2" x I" just later alto the left eye. Lacerated wound about 1/4" over the contusion area. (iii) Punctured wound of about 1/2 cm. over the posterior aspect of left forearm middle 1/3rd. with contusion of about 1" x I" at the above area. 17. After examination, he referred P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Royapettah for opinion regarding injury No.3, since the same is a punctured wound on the hand. He also examined A-6 on the same day at 1.05 a.m. for the injuries said to have been ca used by assault by about 10 to 15 unknown persons. He found an injury lacerated wound 2" in length over the frontal region of the scalp left side I" below the hairline. He issued Ex. P-5 Accident Register extract. He is of the opinion that the injury is simple in nature. P.W. 9 the doctor at Headquarters Hospital examined P.W. 1 on 19-5-1988 at 6 p.m. Ex. P-10 is the Wound Certificate wherein he found that the injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 4 the doctor attached to Government Royapettah Hospital, examined P.W. 2 on 18-5-1988 at 2.05 a.m. and found the following injuries on her: (i) 1 cm. cut wound over the fore-head. (ii) 2 cm. cut on the occipital region of the scalp. (iii) 1 cm. cut on the right forearm. (iv) 1 cm. cut on the right thigh. Ex. P-2 is the Wound Certificate. Based upon the opinion of Orthopaedic Surgeon, he has stated that the injury No.3 on P.W. 2 is grievous in nature. 18. On the basis of the medical evidence, the lower Court has found A-1 guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury on P.W. 1 and for the offence under Section 326 for causing the injury on P.W. 2. A-2 was also found guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on two counts for causing injury on P.W. 2. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very consistent with regard to the injury sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence and as such, we do not find any reason to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very consistent with regard to the injury sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence and as such, we do not find any reason to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Equally, we also do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the Court below including the sentence. 19. So far as A-4 is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that A-4 attacked P.W. 1 with an iron pipe and caused injury on the back side of his head. A-5 caused injury on his left eyebrow. A-4 and A-5 have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 324- and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine. When the prosecution has clearly stated that A-7 to A-9 were unarmed and beat P.Ws. 1 and 2 with hand, we are unable to agree with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to the specific overtact attributed to A-4 and A-5. 20. A-6 had also been found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence ofP.W.1 is that A-6 beat P.W. 1 with stick. P.W. 2 also says that A-6 beat her with stick. When A-1 and A-2 attacked the deceased indiscriminately and caused as many as 21 injuries and when P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to intervene to prevent the attack on the deceased, it may not be possible for them to notice the specific overtact on any of the accused A-4, A-5 and A-6 and as such, the evidence of the prosecution so far as it relates to overtacts against A-4 to A-6 cannot be relied upon. Hence, they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Moreover they had been sentenced to pay fine alone, which is also a very small amount. 21. So far as A-7 to A-2. is, concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that they are unarmed and they beat P.Ws. 1 and 2 only with hands, and the lower Court has found them guilty on two counts under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine. In the absence of any specific overtact so far as A-7 to A-9 are concerned with regard to any particular injury on P.Ws. 1 and 2 only with hands, and the lower Court has found them guilty on two counts under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine. In the absence of any specific overtact so far as A-7 to A-9 are concerned with regard to any particular injury on P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as in the absence of corresponding injury in the medical evidence we are unable to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out any case for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against A-7 to A-9. Perhaps, their presence might have made P.Ws. 1 to 3 to implicate them with the overtact of using their hands. Hence, we find 'that the prosecution has not made out any case so far as: A-7 to A-9 are concerned and accordingly, they are also entitled for the benefit of doubt like A-4 to A-6. 22. For the reasons stated above, we confirm the findings, conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge so far as A-1 and A-2 herein are concerned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed so far as appellants 1 and 2 concerned. So far as other appellants A-4 to A-9 are concerned, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the findings of the learned Sessions Judge only with regard to their guilt for the offences for which they were charged. The appellants 3 to 8 viz. A-4 to A-9 are consequently acquitted. The bail bonds executed by appellants 1 and 2 are directed to be cancelled and the trial Court is directed to secure their presence to serve the remaining period of sentence.