Judgment :- Appellants are Accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.176 of 1996 on the file of Sessions Court, Cuddalore. By the Judgment dated 11.02.1998, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore has convicted the Appellants / A-1 under Sec.352 and 304(II) I.P.C ; A-2 and A-3 under Sec.324 r/w 109 I.P.C and A-4 under Sec.324 I.P.C and sentenced A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Three months for the offence under Sec.352 I.P.C and Three years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Sec.304(II) I.P.C; A-2 and A-3 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Sec.324 r/w 109 I.P.C; and A-4 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Sec.324 I.P.C. 2. Accused and Deceased are the Residents of Aranthangi. P.W.1-Susairaj, P.W.3-Selvaraj are the Sons and P.W.6-Adaikalamary is the Wife of Deceased – Lourdusamy. They are neighbours of A-1-Mariyaselvam. A-4-Vanathiyan is Brother of A-1. A-2-Mottaiyan is the Son of A-4. A-3-Joseph is the Brother-in-law of A-1. There was dispute between A-1 and P.W.1 regarding fence. On 01.03.1996, at about 01.00 p.m., when P.Ws.3 and 4 were in their house, Gloria Mary-Wife of A-1 came there along with Rosemary complaining that P.W.1-Susairaj had committed rape on her Daughter. P.W.6-Mother of P.W.1 replied that she would enquire her son about the same. 3. On 01.03.1996 – at about 02.30 p.m, P.W.1 and his Father – Lourdusamy came to their house. When they were entering the house, A-1 came there. Questioning P.W.1 about his conduct in committing rape on her minor Daughter, A-1 assaulted P.W.1, which resulted in wordy quarrel between Gloria Mary and P.W.2. On hearing their noise, A-2 to A-4 came there. A-2 and A-3 caught hold of Lourdsamy; A-1 beat him on the Left Side of the Head with Stick. A-4 also beat him on the Left Side of his Head with Stick. Lourdsamy fell down and the Accused ran away. 4. Registration of case and Investigation :- P.W.1. went to Sethiyathope Police Station on 01.03.1996 at 06.00 p.m and lodged Ex.P.1-Complaint. P.W.10-Sub Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.168/96 under Ex.P.9-F.I.R. P.W.11-Inspector of Police, Sethiyathope Police Station had taken up the case for investigation. He has inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.7-Kaliappan. Ex.P.5-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.6-Rough Sketch were prepared in the presence of P.W.7. P.W.9-Photographer had taken M.O.3 Series – Photographs. P.W.10-Sub Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.168/96 under Ex.P.9-F.I.R. P.W.11-Inspector of Police, Sethiyathope Police Station had taken up the case for investigation. He has inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.7-Kaliappan. Ex.P.5-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.6-Rough Sketch were prepared in the presence of P.W.7. P.W.9-Photographer had taken M.O.3 Series – Photographs. On 01.03.1996, between 08.30 p.m and 10.30 p.m, witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatars and Inquest was held on the body of the Deceased-Lourdusamy. Ex.P.10 is the Inquest Report. After the Inquest, the body was sent for Autopsy. 5. Pursuant to requisition from P.W.11- Inspector of Police, P.W.2-Dr.Periyasamy, Civil Surgeon, Government Kamarajar Hospital, Chidambaram had conducted Autopsy on the body of Lourdusamy. He has noted Two contusions on the Head and Multiple Abrasions on the Right Shoulder and Left back of the Chest. He has also noted Fracture of Left Temporal Bone on the Left Parietal Region. Opining that the Deceased died of Head Injuries, P.W.2 issued Ex.P.3-Post Mortem Certificate. 6. On 03.03.1996 at about 05.00 p.m., P.W.11 arrested A-1. When being interrogated, he had voluntarily given a Confession Statement (Ex.P.7), which led to the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 – Eucalyptus sticks under Ex.P.8-Mahazar. A-2 and A-4 surrendered before the Court on 11.03.1996. A-3 also surrendered before the Court on 13.03.1996. The seized Material Objects have been sent for Chemical Analysis. On completion of the Investigation, P.W.11 filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused on 06.08.1996. 7. In the Trial Court, to substantiate the Charges against the Accused, Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16. M.Os.1 to 5 were produced. The Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances against them. Denying all of them, the Accused had stated that only the Deceased caused injuries to them. In support of the defence, the Accused have examined D.W.1.-Dr.Sugumar, Civil Surgeon, Government Kamarajar Hospital, Chidambaram to bring home the point that Gloria Mary and A-1 have sustained injuries, for which they have been treated. D.W.1 issued Exs.D-1 and D-2 – Wound Certificates. 8. In consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 5 and 6 is consistent, well spoken to the overt act of each of the Accused. D.W.1 issued Exs.D-1 and D-2 – Wound Certificates. 8. In consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 5 and 6 is consistent, well spoken to the overt act of each of the Accused. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the Witnesses being closely related to the Deceased would not in any way affect their evidence. Rejecting the defence version, learned Sessions Judge found that the injuries to Gloria Mary is sufficiently explained and any further explanation is to be seen only in the Trial in Crime No.167/96. On those findings, the Accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid in para (1). 9. Aggrieved over the Judgment, the Appellants / Accused have preferred this Appeal. Submitting that the Prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence, learned counsel for the Appellants has assailed the Prosecution case contending that the Prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of the Accused. It is mainly contended that the Prosecution has deliberately omitted in not placing the file relating to the rape case in Crime No.167/96 and the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of Gloria Mary and A-1 is fatal to the Prosecution case. Further, placing reliance upon the decision reported in LAKSHMI SINGH AND OTHERS ..VS.. STATE OF BIHAR (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2261), learned counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the omission on the part of the Prosecution to explain the injuries of the person of the Accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested Witnesses P.Ws.1,3,5 and 6 and prays for Acquittal. 10. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,5 and 6, learned Government Advocate Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan has submitted that the injury to Gloria Mary is well explained by the Prosecution. It is further submitted that the case in Crime No.167 / 96 relates to the occurrence on the previous day night and hence, placing the file relating to that case in this case has not arisen. Pointing out that the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,5 and 6 are consistent as to the injuries caused to the Accused persons, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the Appellants / Accused for causing the death of Lourdusamy and that there is no reason warranting interference. 11. Pointing out that the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,5 and 6 are consistent as to the injuries caused to the Accused persons, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the Appellants / Accused for causing the death of Lourdusamy and that there is no reason warranting interference. 11. In consideration of the evidence, Judgment of the Trial Court, submissions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal : (i) Whether the case of Prosecution suffers from non-explanation of the Injuries on the person of A-1 and his Wife Gloria Mary ? (ii) Whether the conviction of Appellants / Accused and assessment of evidence suffers from any infirmity warranting interference ? 12. The Appellants and the Accused are Residents of Aranthangi Village. The main road – Siddhamalli Road is the East West Road. Houses of Deceased – Lourdusamy and A-1-Mariyaselvam are on the Northern side. The occurrence was on 01.03.1996 – 02.30 p.m in front of the house of Deceased-Lourdusamy. A-1 and his Wife-Gloria Mary came to the house of Deceased-Lourdusamy questioning the conduct of P.W.1 in seducing their minor Daughter and committing rape on her. P.W.1-Susairaj and Deceased-Lourdusamy shouted at them, which resulted in a wordy quarrel and scuffle between them. Gloria Mary was pushed down and A-1 beat on the Neck of P.W.1. Lourdusamy questioned the conduct of the Accused as to how they can come to his house and beat his Son-P.W.1. Enraged over the same, A-1 beat him with Stick on his Head; A-4 on his Head while A-2 and A-3 held the Deceased. 13. P.W.1-Susairaj, P.W.3-Selvaraj are the Sons; P.W.4-Arokiasami is the Son-in-law and P.W.6-Adaikalamary is the Wife of Deceased-Lourdusamy. All of them have witnessed the occurrence and consistently spoken about the attack and the blow on the Head of Lourdusamy by Accused 1 to 4. Reliability of their evidence is assailed on the ground of relatedness to the Deceased. Acceptance of their evidence is also attacked on the ground that P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 have not come out with true version of the origin of the occurrence in explaining the injuries to Gloria Mary and A-1. 14. Relatedness of the Witnesses to the Deceased cannot be the reason to discard their evidence. The occurrence was at 02.30 p.m on 01.03.1996. P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 were very well available in the house and are Natural Witnesses to speak about the occurrence. 14. Relatedness of the Witnesses to the Deceased cannot be the reason to discard their evidence. The occurrence was at 02.30 p.m on 01.03.1996. P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 were very well available in the house and are Natural Witnesses to speak about the occurrence. Being natural witnesses, their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground of their relatedness to the Deceased. All that is required is to carefully analyse their evidence. Their evidence is fortified by prompt registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.168/96 (Ex.P.9) – 06.00 p.m on the same day on 01.03.1996. Prompt registration of F.I.R. lends assurance to the Prosecution. 15. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that A-1 attacked on the Left Head and not on the Frontal Region. Other Witnesses have also stated that A-1 attacked Deceased Lourdusamy on the Back of the Head, but Deceased -Lourdusamy sustained injuries – Contusion on the Left Temporal Region. This is urged as inconsistency between Medical Evidence and Oral Evidence, contending that the injury on the Left Temporal Region is not spoken to by the Witnesses. This contention does not merit acceptance. From Ex.P.3-Post Mortem Certificate, it is seen that Deceased sustained contusion on the top of the Head; Left Temporal area. Whatever be the region, the fact remains that the Deceased died of Head Injuries. The Witnesses might have had their own way of describing the attack on the Deceased and part of the Head in which A-1 attacked the Deceased. The same cannot be urged as inconsistency between the Oral Evidence and Medical Evidence. 16. Prosecution case and the evidence of Witnesses is mainly attacked on the ground of non-explanation of the injuries on the person of Gloria Mary and A-1. On the previous day – 29.02.1996 – P.W.1 is alleged to have lured the minor Daughter of A-1 and committed rape on her. Gloria Mary and A-1 to A-4 have gone to the house of Lourdusamy and questioned the conduct of P.W.1 and the occurrence had taken place. In the same occurrence, Gloria Mary and A-1 sustained injuries. From Ex.D.1, it is seen that Gloria Mary sustained Scalp Injury on the Occipital area. As per Ex.D.2 - A-1 sustained Abrasions on the Ring Finger, Middle Finger of Right Hand, Right Thumb and cut injury on the Left Leg below the Knee etc. In the same occurrence, Gloria Mary and A-1 sustained injuries. From Ex.D.1, it is seen that Gloria Mary sustained Scalp Injury on the Occipital area. As per Ex.D.2 - A-1 sustained Abrasions on the Ring Finger, Middle Finger of Right Hand, Right Thumb and cut injury on the Left Leg below the Knee etc. Laying emphasis upon Exs.D.1 and D.2 that Gloria Mary and A-1 sustained injuries and the same has not been explained by the Prosecution, it is contended that non-explanation of Injuries on the person of the Accused seriously undermines the Prosecution case. As to the non-explanation of Injuries sustained by the Accused, learned counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2261 (cited supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held: “....The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one....” It is further contended that the Prosecution has suppressed the case by not placing the material facts relating to case in Crime No.167/96. This contention is to be appreciated in the light of the evidence adduced. 17. Regarding the alleged occurrence of rape on the previous day – 29.02.1996, case was registered in Crime No.167/96 of Sethiyathope Police Station under Sec.326, 323 and 324 I.P.C at 03.30 p.m. On the Complaint lodged by P.W.1 on the death of his Father, case was registered under Sec.302 I.P.C in Crime No.168/96 at 06.00 p.m. Ex.P.1-Complaint does not mention anything as to the injuries caused to Gloria Mary and A-1. In his evidence, P.W.1 has also stated about the injuries caused to A-1 and Gloria Mary. When it was suggested to P.W.1 that he and P.W.3 have caused injuries to Gloria Mary, P.W.1 has only denied them. Though P.W.1 has denied the suggestion, P.W.3 has stated that in the scuffle, they have pushed down Gloria Mary, who had fallen down and sustained injuries. Thus, P.Ws.5 and 6 have also stated that Gloria Mary sustained injuries due to falling in the scuffle. Thus, the Witnesses have tried to explain away the injuries on the person. It is not as if the prosecution suffers from non-explanation of the injuries to Gloria Mary. Thus, P.Ws.5 and 6 have also stated that Gloria Mary sustained injuries due to falling in the scuffle. Thus, the Witnesses have tried to explain away the injuries on the person. It is not as if the prosecution suffers from non-explanation of the injuries to Gloria Mary. As noted earlier, A-2 sustained injuries in the same transaction. The Prosecution could have done better had they produced Exs.D-1 and D-2. But, non production of Exs.D.1 and D.2 and non-explanation of Injuries on the person of the Accused does not ipso facto in all cases lead to the conclusion that the Prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. 18. The Prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the Accused : (i) If it is not superficial or trivial in nature ; (ii)If it is occurred in the course of the same incident; There may be cases where the evidence of Prosecution is so strong, clear and cogent inspiring the confidence of the Court regarding the manner of attack. Evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 is formidable in bringing out the attack on Lourdusamy. 19. Gloria Mary sustained only simple Injuries. From Ex.D.1 it is seen – Scalp Injury on the Occipital Area. A-1 also sustained only Simple Injuries of Abrasions on Ring Finger, Middle Finger of Right Hand, Right Thumb and cut injury on the Left Leg below the Knee etc. Since Gloria Mary and A-1 sustained only Simple Injuries, this is not the case where the Prosecution is to be thrown over board for non-explanation of those simple injuries on the person of Gloria Mary and A-1. 20. Learned counsel for the Appellants / Accused has nextly contended that serious doubts arise on the Prosecution case in view of non consideration of the materials relating to Crime No.167/96. As noted earlier, regarding the occurrence on the previous day, case has been registered on 01.03.1996 – 03.30 p.m in Crime No.167/96. The alleged occurrence of rape was on the previous day night and not connected with this case. Rule 588-A of the Police Standing Order deals with Charge Sheet in cases and counter cases. The occurrence on the previous day Night cannot be said to be a counter case, compelling upon the Investigating Agency to apply with Police Standing Order – Rule 588-A. The contention urged placing reliance upon the decision reported in M.KRISHNARAJ AND OTHERS ..VS.. Rule 588-A of the Police Standing Order deals with Charge Sheet in cases and counter cases. The occurrence on the previous day Night cannot be said to be a counter case, compelling upon the Investigating Agency to apply with Police Standing Order – Rule 588-A. The contention urged placing reliance upon the decision reported in M.KRISHNARAJ AND OTHERS ..VS.. STATE (1989 T.L.N.J(CRL) 153) does not merit acceptance. 21. By the consistent version of P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6, the attack on the Head of Deceased-Lourdusamy by A-1 and A-4 is well proved. A-2 and A-3 instigated the offence by holding the Deceased. From Ex.P.3, it is seen that the Deceased sustained Contusion on the Top of the Head, Left Temporal Area, Multiple Abration on the Right Shoulder and Left back of the Chest. On internal examination, it was found Haematoma on the Left Temporal area, Fracture of the Left Temporal bone, bleeding from the Left Temporal Lobe brain. The overt act of A-1 to A-4 is proved by Medical Evidence. Since the act of A-1 – Attack on the Left Temporal bone was fatal and the death was due Head Injuries, A-1 was found guilty under Sec.304(II) I.P.C. A-4 found guilty under Sec.324 r/w 34 I.P.C. But, for holding the Deceased-Lourdusamy by A-2 and A-3, A-1 and A-4 could not have inflicted the fatal blow on the Deceased-Lourdusamy. Hence, A-2 and A-3 have been rightly found guilty under Sec.324 r/w 109 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly found the Appellants / Accused guilty and that finding is well balanced, which does not warrant any interference. The Sentence of Imprisonment imposed upon the Appellants / Accused is also well balanced, warranting no interference. This Appeal has no merits and the same is bound to fail. 21. C.A.No.155 of 1998:- Therefore, the Judgment (dated 11.02.1998) of learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.176 of 1996, convicting the Appellants / Accused for various offences and the sentence of Imprisonment imposed upon them are confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. 22. Since the Appellants/Accused are on bail, the Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the Appellants/Accused and make them to undergo remaining period of sentence.