JUDGMENT N. Dhinakar, J. - The appeal is at the instance of A1 and A2 in Sessions Case No. 199 of 1988 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and the revision is by the de facto complainant against the acquittal of A2 under Section& 302 r/w 34, IPC and 307, IPC and against the acquittal of A4 in" the said Sessions Case under Sections 302, 307 r /w 34, and 336 IPC. As both the appeal and the revision arise out of a Single Sessions Case, we dispose them of by the following judgment. 2. The first appellant in the appeal will be hereinafter referred to as the first accused (A1), the Second appellant in the appeal and the first respondent in the revision as the second accused (A2), and the second respondent in the revision as the fourth accused (A4) for the sake of convenience. They were tried along with the third accused in the said Sessions case, who died pending trial and in this judgment, he will be referred to in the order as he was arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows; The deceased is the brother-in law of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1 and the elder sister of the deceased. P.W. 1 is the brother of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 6. P.W8 is the sister of the deceased. A2 is the father of A1, A3, and A4. The witnesses and the accused were the residents of Kalanthapanai. Three years prior to the date of incident, Al outraged the modesty of P.W.8 for which, she laid a complaint, and Ex. P-20 is a Copy of the First Information Report in that case. The police, after investigation, laid the final report against A1 and A1 pleaded guilty and paid the fine. Thereafter, he left the village for Bombay. He returned to the village a month prior to the date of incident. A week prior to the date of incident, when P.W. 1 was standing in front of the petty-shop of P.W. 5, A1, who was also there, threatened P.W. 1 that he will not leave him alone since only because of them he had to say the fine in court. He picked up a quarrel with P.W. 1. A week prior to the date of incident, when P.W. 1 was standing in front of the petty-shop of P.W. 5, A1, who was also there, threatened P.W. 1 that he will not leave him alone since only because of them he had to say the fine in court. He picked up a quarrel with P.W. 1. P.W. 5 intervened and separated them. This is said to be the motive. 4. On 19-6-1987 at about 6.00 P.M. P.W. 1 accompanied by his wife, P.W. 2, and his brother-in-Law, the deceased, were returning after king bath. When they reached South Valliyur junction, they were accosted by A1 to A4, A1 with an aruval cut the deceased twice on his head. The deceased fell down. A3 also cut him on the right knee with an aruval. A4 with an iron rod beat the deceased on his legs. P.W. 1 attempted to run away from the place and A2 with an aruval M.O. 3, cut P.W. 1 on his head and A4 beat P.W. 1 on his right shoulder with an iron rod. P.W. 2, who was standing behind P.W. 1, intervened and she was attacked by A2 on the head as well as on the back of chest. P.Ws. 3, 4 and another intervened and A4, threw a stone resulting in an injury to P.W-3. P.W. 1, thereafter, snatched the aruval from the hands of A2 and cut A1 and A3. At that time, A4 snatched away the aruval from the hands of P.W. 1. P.W.1 raised an alarm and on seeing people rushing to the scene, the accused ran away with weapons. Thereafter, P.W. 1 stopped a taxi, which was passing by in which the injured and the deceased were placed and they were taken to Panagudi Police Station, where a complaint was given by P.W. 1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police. The said complaint is Ex. P-1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, on the basis of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 226 of 1987 under sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC. Ex. P-25 is a Copy of the printed First Information Report. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and Rajendra Gopal, the deceased in the case, were, thereafter, sent to the hospital with a memo. P-1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, on the basis of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 226 of 1987 under sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC. Ex. P-25 is a Copy of the printed First Information Report. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and Rajendra Gopal, the deceased in the case, were, thereafter, sent to the hospital with a memo. S. On being referred, P.W. 11, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Nagercoil, examined the deceased Rajendra Gopal at 7.50 P.M. on 19-6-1987 and found on him the following injuries: An incised wound in the middle of the right thigh oblique 5" x 6" x bone-deep interior aspect. An incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the medial aspect of the right thigh in the middle. A transversely placed incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" x 2" above the right knee medial aspect. A transverse incised wound 2" x 1" x bone-cut on the lower 1/3 of the right leg medial aspect. Another incised wound transverse 1" x 1" x bone-cut just below the above wound. A transverse incised wound between the two maleolus posteriorly cutting the muscles and tendons and brain underneath 6" x 2” x 2". An oblique incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the left leg anterior aspect upper 1/3rd. A lacerated injury on the posterior aspect of the left leg 3" from the ankle joint 3" x 1" x 1" - bone injured. A lacerated injury 1" x 1/2" " bone injured on the left maleolus. A lacerated injury on the lateral aspect of the left leg 1" from the ankle joint 2" x 1" x 1/4". A transversely placed from the left temporal to the parietal region 6" x 1" x 1/2" brain exposed 3" above the left ear. 1/2" above the left ear a transversely placed parallel to the above wound 5" x 1" x 1/2" injuring the muscles and the bone. Ex. P-8 is a copy of the wound certificate issued by P.W. 11 in respect of the injuries found on the deceased. 6. P.W. 11 also examined P.W. 1 at 8.20 p.m. on 19-6-1987 and found the following injuries on his person: An incised wound 3-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" with fresh bleeding over the right parietal region. Swelling on the right shoulder 3" x 3" with restricted right should movement. P.W. 11 issued Ex. 6. P.W. 11 also examined P.W. 1 at 8.20 p.m. on 19-6-1987 and found the following injuries on his person: An incised wound 3-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" with fresh bleeding over the right parietal region. Swelling on the right shoulder 3" x 3" with restricted right should movement. P.W. 11 issued Ex. P-9, the wound certificate, with her opinion that the injuries suffered by P.W. 1 are simple in nature. 7. P.W. 2 was similarly examined by P.W. 11 at 8.40 P.M. on 19-6-1987and the following injuries were found on her person: An incised wound 2-1/2" x 1/2 x bone-deep with fresh bleeding on the right parietal region close to the midline, oblique in. direction. An incised oblique wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" over the left scapular region with 2" linear abrasion. Ex. P-10 is the wound certificate with the opinion of the doctor that the injuries found on P.W. 2 are simple in nature. 8. P.W. 12, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Nagercoil, examined P.W. 3 at 11.30 a.m. on 20-6-1987 and found on his person a lacerated injury on the left side of the upper lip measuring 1 cm x 1/2cm and it was muscle-deep. EX. P-11 is a copy of the wound certificate issued by P.W. 12 with his opinion that the injury is simple in nature. When P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were questioned as to the cause of injuries all of them stated that they were attacked by four known persons with "aruvals" and sticks. 9. In the meantime, A1 and A3, who also sustained injuries during the course of the same transaction appeared before P.W. 13 the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, at about 10.15 p.m. on 19-6-1987. P.W. 13 examined Al and found on his person the following injuries: An incised wound 6" x 3" x muscle-deep over the front and the inner sides of the midforearm (left). An incised wound 3" x 1/2" x bone-deep over the right parietal region – profuse bleeding. P.W. 13 issued Ex. P-12, the wound certificate, with his opinion that injury No.1 found on A1 is grievous. 10. P.W. 13 also examined A3 at 10.30 P.M. on 19-6-1987 and found on his person the following injuries: An oval-sized incised wound 3" x 4" x bone-deep over the left occipito-parietal region with the skin peeled. P.W. 13 issued Ex. P-12, the wound certificate, with his opinion that injury No.1 found on A1 is grievous. 10. P.W. 13 also examined A3 at 10.30 P.M. on 19-6-1987 and found on his person the following injuries: An oval-sized incised wound 3" x 4" x bone-deep over the left occipito-parietal region with the skin peeled. A linear incised wound 6" x 1" over the left deltrid region. An incised wound 2" x 1" muscle-deep over the middle of the left arm outer space. He issued Ex. P-13, the wound certificate, with his opinion that injuries Nos. 1 and 3 are grievous and injury No.2 is simple. 11. In the meantime. Rajenara Gopal, who was undergoing treatment at the hospital, breathed his last at 8.10 p.m. on 19-6-1987 and a death intimation. Ex. P-27, was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Panagudi Police Station, who altered the crime from one under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 302 IPC and the express report in the altered crime is Ex. P-26. 12. P.W. 17, a Grade-I Police Station attached to Panagudi Police Station, on receipt of an intimation, Ex. P-18 from the Out-Post Police Station at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, went to the hospital and found Al undergoing treatment at the hospital. P.W. 17 questioned A1, who then gave a statement, which was reduced into writing. P.W. 17 returned to the police station and on the basis of the statement given by A1, registered a case in Crime No. 227 of 1987 for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC against the deceased, P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and another person, who was cited as an eye-witness in this case by the investigating agency. Ex. P-19 is a copy of the First Information Report. 13. P.W. 20 the Circle Inspector of Police, Valliyur Circle, took up investigation in both the crimes. He reach the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 20-6-1987, where he prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P-2, and drew a rough sketch, Ex. P-28. He seized blood-stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar Ex. P-3 attested by the witnesses. He questioned P.W. 7 and recorded his statement,. He thereafter, proceeded to Government Hospital, Nagercoil, where between 8.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., conducted inquest over the dead body of Rajendra Gopal by preparing the inquest report, Ex. P-29. P-28. He seized blood-stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar Ex. P-3 attested by the witnesses. He questioned P.W. 7 and recorded his statement,. He thereafter, proceeded to Government Hospital, Nagercoil, where between 8.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., conducted inquest over the dead body of Rajendra Gopal by preparing the inquest report, Ex. P-29. During the inquest, he questioned and recorded the statements of P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and another. After the inquest was over, he issued Ex. P-6 a requisition, for conduct in autopsy. 14. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, P.W. 10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Nagercoil, conducted autopsy on the body of Rajendra Gopal at 12.15 P.M. on 20-6-1987 and found the following external injuries: A transversely placed incised injury extending from the left temporal to the parietal bone measuring 12cm x 2cm x 2cm in dimension. The depth is maximum at the centre. The wound is 3" above the left ear. Another transverse incised injury Parallel to injury No.1 just 2-1/2" below injury No. 1, measuring 11 x 2 x 2 cm. The depth is maximum at the centre. The skull bone is cut. A transverse incised injury on the middle of the medial aspect of the right thigh 15 cm above the right knee joint measuring 10 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm x bone depth. No fracture. A transversely placed incised wound 7 cm above the right ankle joint on the medial aspect measuring 6 cm x 2 cm x 2cm. Tibia bone is fractured. A transversely placed incised wound 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the medial aspect of the right thigh 2 cm below injury No.4. A transverse incised wound on the right skin 2 cm below the right ankle joint measuring 14 x 5 x 6 cm. The muscle and tendon is cut. An incised injury on the right side thigh medial to injury No. 3 measuring 2 x 2 x 1 cm. transverse in direction. An incised injury on the right side thigh 10 cm below injury No.7 on the medial aspect measuring 2 cm x 2 x 1 cm, oblique in direction. An incised injury on the left side shin 5 cm above the left ankle joint. Transverse in direction measuring 8 x 3 x 3cm. transverse in direction. An incised injury on the right side thigh 10 cm below injury No.7 on the medial aspect measuring 2 cm x 2 x 1 cm, oblique in direction. An incised injury on the left side shin 5 cm above the left ankle joint. Transverse in direction measuring 8 x 3 x 3cm. An incised injury just 2 cm below injury No.9, transverse in direction measuring 5 x 2 x 2cm. An incised injury in the middle of the left thigh. Oblique in direction 6" x 4" x bone-deep on the anterior aspect. A linear contusion on the left side chest below the left clavicle vertical in direction measuring 10 x 0.5 cm. A linear contusion starting from the superior aspect of the left scapula upto the left clavicle encircling the left nape of the neck measuring 10 x 0.5 cm. A lacerated injury on the lateral aspect of the left leg one inch distal to the ankle joint 5 x 2 x 1 cm in measurement. P.W. 10 issued Ex. P-7, the post-mortem certificate with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock. 15. P.W. 20 continued his investigation questioned the other witnesses in the case and recorded their statements. M.O.5, a shirt produced by P.W. 3 was seized under a mahazar. He arrested A2 and A4 at about 5.00 p.m. on 20-6-1987 near Valliyur Radhapuram Road in the presence of P.W. 9 and another. When questioned. A4 gave a statement and the admissible portion of the said statement is Ex. P-4 in the case. In pursuance of Ex. P-4, A4 took the police party to Valliyur Puthukkulam, from where he took and produced M.Os. 2 and 3, which were recovered under a mahazar Ex. P-30 attested by P.W. 9 and another. As A2 and A4 had injuries on their persons they were sent to the doctor for treatment. 16. On being referred. P.W. 14 the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Nanguneri, examined A4 at 4.15 p.m. on 21-6-1987 and found on his person an abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm over the right parietal area and he was treated as an out-patient. Ex. P-14 is the accident register in respect of the injury found on A4, issued by P.W. 14 who opined that the injury is simple. Ex. P-14 is the accident register in respect of the injury found on A4, issued by P.W. 14 who opined that the injury is simple. P.W. 14 also examined A2 at 4.20 P.M. on 21-6-1987 and found on his person an abrasion measuring 6 cm x 2 cm over the right side back of loin. P.W. 14 issued Ex. P-15, the accident register in respect of the injury found on A2, with his opinion that the injury is simple in nature. 17. The accused were thereafter, sent for remand. The material objects seized in the case were sent to the court with a request to forward them for analysis. P.W. 20 laid the final report against all the accused on 18-12-1987 after referring Crime No. 227 of 1987 which was registered on the basis of the statement given by A1. 18. When questioned under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them the accused denied their complicity. A1 stated that while he was in his shop in Valliyur junction. P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 came in a group and that they attacked him on the hands and on the head. He further stated that he raised an alarm and hearing his shouts his father A2, his brothers A3 and A4 and others reached the scene and they were also attacked. According to him since his brother A3 suffered serious injuries, he was sent to the hospital and that he went to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. His statement was adopted by the other accused. 19. There is no dispute that Rajendra Gopal died on account of the injuries sustained. P.W. 10 the postmortem doctor, who conducted autopsy and issued Ex. P-7, the post-mortem certificate, opined that Rajendra Gopal died on account of the injuries as noted by him in Ex. P-7. Hence, we hold that Rajendra Gopal died on account of the injuries sustained by him. 20. The question, that is to be decided by us, is whether A1 and A2 are responsible for the injuries which caused the death of Rajendra Gopal. To prove the said fact, the prosecution, before the trial court, examined P.Ws. 1 to 5. Of them, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are related to the deceased. P.W. 5 is an accused in the complaint given by A1, which was registered as an F.I.R. as could be seen from Ex. P-19. To prove the said fact, the prosecution, before the trial court, examined P.Ws. 1 to 5. Of them, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are related to the deceased. P.W. 5 is an accused in the complaint given by A1, which was registered as an F.I.R. as could be seen from Ex. P-19. P.W. 3 according to the prosecution went to a tea-stall and when he was taking tea, he saw the incident. According to P.W. 1, while he was returning with his Wife. P.W. 2 and his brother-in-law the deceased from a pump set they were waylaid and attacked by the accused. According to them, thereafter, they went to the police station and gave a complaint. The presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be disbelieved since they have suffered injuries during the course of the same transaction and the prosecution also examined two doctors. P.Ws.11 and 12, who examined the witnesses and issued wound certificates. Therefore, we hold that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were present at the time of incident and suffered injuries. 21. As regards P.W. 3, we may say even at the outset that his evidence cannot be accepted. It is his case that while he was taking tea at a tea-stall he saw the incident. The present version that he saw the incident while he was taking tea was not given by him when he was examined during investigation. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the present version of P.W. 3 is an improved one from the one earlier given by him. We place no reliance on his evidence. 22. Similarly, we have to consider the evidence of P.W. 5 with a pinch of salt since he was the accused in the counter complaint given by A1, on the basis of which. Ex. P-19 was registered. A1 also admitted the occurrence as could be seen from Ex. P-19. In Ex. P-19, A1 has stated that at about 6.00 p.m. on 19-6-1987, when he was standing at South Valliyur junction in Tirunelveli-Nagercoil Road the deceased with his brother-in-law P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 accompanied by one Muthukrishnan went there armed with aruvals and sticks and that the deceased cut him on the head twice resulting in injuries. He has further alleged that he raised an alarm. He has further alleged that he raised an alarm. The deceased once again inflicted a cut on A1, which, when warded off, caused an injury on his left hand. According to him, on hearing his cries, his brothers A3 and A4 as well as his father A2 rushed to the scene and on seeing the attack on him, they came to his rescue and that P.W. 1 attacked A3 on the left side of the shoulder as well as on the head. According to him, A3 was also cut by P.W. 3 and that P.W. 5 attacked him as well as A3 causing injuries to them. In the said complaint, he has further alleged that in retaliation he and his brother, A3 and A4, attacked the prosecution witnesses and the deceased by way of self-defence. According to him, on account of their attack, the witnesses and the deceased also suffered injuries. A reading of Exs. P-1 and P-19 clearly show that there was an occurrence at about 6.00 P.M. and during that occurrence the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused have suffered injuries. 23. The question that is now to be decided by us is whether the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution or in the manner alleged by the accused. Both the parties have different versions, each blaming the other by stating that the other party is the aggressor. Though P.W. 1 has in his evidence stated that A1 and A3 have suffered injuries, he did not give any explanation as to the injuries suffered by A2 and A4. In fact in his cross-examination. P.W. 1 has admitted that he did not even notice whether A2 and A4 have suffered injuries. He has further stated that he was not even questioned by the investigating officer as to how A2 and A4 have suffered injuries. He has also admitted that the officer did not question him on the complaint given by A1. The answers given by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination clearly show that the investigation officer did not conduct an unbiased investigation. Similarly, P.W. 2 did not even say that A4 sustained injuries on account of the beating. She also admitted that she was not questioned by the investigating officer as to how the accused have suffered injuries. The answers given by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination clearly show that the investigation officer did not conduct an unbiased investigation. Similarly, P.W. 2 did not even say that A4 sustained injuries on account of the beating. She also admitted that she was not questioned by the investigating officer as to how the accused have suffered injuries. The accused have suggested to all the eye-witnesses in terms of the statement given by A1, which was registered as an F.I.R. under Ex. P-19. 24. Further, it has to be seen that the occurrence took place near the house of the accused. The explanation offered by the witnesses that they were returning from a pump set is not supported by any recovery of the objects like soap, towel, etc. at the scene of occurrence though P.W. 6 the owner of a well, had come out with a statement in his evidence that the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 had taken bath in his well. The investigating officer also did not investigate to find out and let in evidence as to the distance between the scene of occurrence and the house of the deceased. Had the investigating officer conducted investigation on this aspect, he would have known as to who the aggressors are. The investigation in this case is perfunctory and one-sided. A reading of Ex. P-31, the referred report sent by P.W. 20 referring Crime No. 227 of 1987 which was registered on the basis of the of the complaint given by A1, clearly shows that no investigation was conducted in the crime. There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to how A2 and A4 suffered injuries whereas A1 had come out with a statement in Ex. P-19 which was registered as Crime No. 227 of 1987 wherein he had given the graphic details as to how the occurrence started and ended. We are more inclined to believe Ex.P-19 than Ex. P-1 in the background of the non explanation of the injuries found on A2 and A4 and also in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that they were not questioned by the investigating officer in Crime No. 227 of 1987. We find that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the case. P-1 in the background of the non explanation of the injuries found on A2 and A4 and also in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that they were not questioned by the investigating officer in Crime No. 227 of 1987. We find that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the case. We do not place any reliance upon the evidence of these witnesses to hold that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 25. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants/accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and the same is given to them. The appellants/accused are therefore, acquitted and the appeal is allowed. In view of the judgment passed in the Criminal Appeal, the revision, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed. 26. It is reported that the appellants/accused are on bail. Hence, the bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.