Judgment : Per M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. 1. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 have preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1107 of 2002, challenging their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years under Section 147 I.P.C. Totally there are 10 accused, out of which the trial Court acquitted A4 to A9. Challenging the same, the State has preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 943 of 2005. P.W.5 the wife of the deceased has preferred the Revision in Crl. R.C. No. 252 of 2003 against the acquittal in respect of A4 to A9. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- (a) The deceased Anandan was elected as Vice-President of Naraikinaru Village Panchayat. He belongs to Udayar Community. A10 Ganesan, who belongs to Gounder Community was elected as President of the said Village Panchayat. (b) The villagers had a grievance against A10 that he was not extending help to other Community people. On the other hand, he was helping only the people who belong to his Community. The villagers complained to the Vice-President about the attitude of A10. The deceased being the Vice-President, raised the issue. Ultimately, the people gathered there and locked the premises of the Panchayat Board, to prevent A10, to use the premises as office premises. This was on 14.8.1997. (c) One month later, i. e. on 15.9.1997, A10 came to the Panchayat Board Office and broke open the lock of the Panchayat Office and entered into it. The next day, i. e. on 16.9.1997, at about 5.30 p.m.. the deceased and other witnesses along with others came to the Panchayat Board Office to question the act of A10, who broke open the lock of the premises. There was a clash between two groups, resulting which, both the parties sustained injuries. Ultimately, A10 instigated the other accused to attack the deceased again. In order to escape from the clutches of A10 and his men, the deceased Anandan ran towards Naraikinaru Co-operative Society Office, which is adjacent to the Panchayat Board Office. (d) After entry into the Naraikinaru Co-operative Society Office, the deceased bolted the door from inside. On noticing, that the deceased was taking refuge in the society Office, the watchman of the Society locked the door from outside. (d) After entry into the Naraikinaru Co-operative Society Office, the deceased bolted the door from inside. On noticing, that the deceased was taking refuge in the society Office, the watchman of the Society locked the door from outside. The accused persons were standing in front of the Society Office and shouted at the deceased asking to come out. On hearing the news, P.W.4, the son of the deceased and P.W.5, the wife of the deceased came to the scene of occurrence. They also saw all the 10 accused standing in the scene of occurrence, calling the deceased to come outside. The deceased was inside the Society Office, along with P.W.6 Chellamuthu. They shouted back stating that they would come out only at the arrival of police. (e) Then, A1 to A3, claiming themselves as police persons, asked the deceased to come out. Believing those words, the deceased and P.W.6 came out and noticed that the police did not come to the scene of occurrence. On seeing the deceased and P.W.6 coming out, after driving out P.W.6, the accused caught hold of the deceased and dragged him to a place near Pilliyar Koil. On the instigation of A10, A1 beat the deceased on his stomach with wooden log. A2 and A3 beat the deceased on his legs with the wooden log. Other accused persons kicked the deceased. The deceased fell down. Even thereafter, the accused persons continued to kick the deceased. When P.W.5, the wife of the deceased intervened, she was also attacked by A4 with wooden log. Thereupon, the accused persons left the place of occurrence with the weapons. (f) Thereafter, P.W.4, the son of the deceased took the deceased to Rasipuram Government Hospital, where P.W.8 gave treatment to the deceased and issued Exhibit P.1 Accident Register copy. Since the condition of the deceased was serious, P.W.8 referred the deceased to the Salem Medical College Hospital. (g) In the meantime, at about 3.30 a.m.. on 17.9.1997, P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to Government Hospital, Rasipuram and obtained a complaint (Exhibit P.18) from the deceased. A case was registered in Crime No. 251 of 1997 under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. he prepared printed F.I.R. Exhibit P.19 (h) Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Salem Medical College Hospital, where P.W.15 gave treatment to the deceased and issued Ex.P.13 Accident Register copy. A case was registered in Crime No. 251 of 1997 under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. he prepared printed F.I.R. Exhibit P.19 (h) Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Salem Medical College Hospital, where P.W.15 gave treatment to the deceased and issued Ex.P.13 Accident Register copy. On 17.9.1997 at 6.15 a.m., the deceased died. Death intimation (Exhibit P.14) was sent to the police. On receipt of the same, P.W.18 the Sub-Inspector of Police altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent intimation to the Court and the higher police officials. (i) P.W.19, the Inspector of Police on receipt of the message, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared rough sketch (Exhibit P.20) and observation mahazar (Exhibit P.22) Then, inquest was conducted, Exhibit P.21 is the Inquest report. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. (j) P.W.16, the Doctor attached to the Salem Medical College Hospital, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 3.13 p.m. on 17.9.1997. He found as many as 8 injuries on the body of the deceased. He gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to spleen in Exhibit P.16, the post-mortem certificate. (k) On 18.9.1997, P.W.19 arrested the accused A1 and A9. On the voluntary confession of A1 (Ex.P.3) M.O.1 was recovered. On 22.9.1997, he arrested A5 and A8. In the meantime, he came to know A2, A3 and A10 had surrendered before the Court. Thereafter, police custody was obtained. On the confession of A10 and A2, the wooden log (M.O.2) was recovered. A.3 also gave a confession and in pursuant to which, M.O.3 another wooden log was recovered. All the material objects were sent for chemical examination. P.W.19, examined other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against all the accused A1 to A10 under Sections 147, 302 read with/ 149 I.P.C. (l) During the course of trial, P.Ws. 1 to 19 were examined Exhibits P.1 to 26 and M.Os. 1 to 6 were marked. (m) The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied their complicity in the crime in question. On the side of defence, 6 exhibits were marked, showing that there was a clash between two groups and in that process, the accused also sustained injuries. 1 to 6 were marked. (m) The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied their complicity in the crime in question. On the side of defence, 6 exhibits were marked, showing that there was a clash between two groups and in that process, the accused also sustained injuries. (n) The trial Court, after having analysed the entire materials, concluded that the prosecution has established the case as against A1 to A3 and A10 and convicted them as mentioned above, and gave benefit of doubt to A4 to A9 and acquitted them. (o) Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction, A1 to A3 and A10 have preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1107 of 2002. Similarly, as indicated above, as against the acquittal in respect of A4 to A9, the State has preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 943 of 2005, P.W.5, the wife of the deceased filed the Revision in Crl. R.C. No. 252 of 2003, as against the acquittal of A4 to A9. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the Appeals. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner P.W.5, who filed the Revision against the acquittal. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 5. According to the prosecution there was a group clash between two groups in the premises of Panchayat Board Office at 5.30 p.m.. on 15.9.1997. There is no dispute regarding the fact that in the group clash, both the parties, viz. the deceased and accused party sustained injuries. 6. It is the case of prosecution that after the group clash was over, the deceased was chased by the accused party due to which, the deceased ran from the Panchayat Board Office in order to escape from the hands of the accused and took shelter in the Society Office, which is adjacent to the Panchayat Board Office. He went inside the Office along with P.W.6 Chellamuthu and locked the door from inside. He then phoned up to the police officials about the incidence. In the meantime, all the accused persons came in front of the Society Office along with villagers and called the deceased to come out. Both the deceased and P.W.6 replied that they would come out only at the arrival of the police. He then phoned up to the police officials about the incidence. In the meantime, all the accused persons came in front of the Society Office along with villagers and called the deceased to come out. Both the deceased and P.W.6 replied that they would come out only at the arrival of the police. After some time, the accused told the deceased and P.W.6 by shouting that police have arrived. On believing those words, the deceased and P.W.6 came out and on finding that the police did not come and they had given a false news, the deceased did not move outside and he was standing near the Society Office. At that time, all the accused threatened P.W.6 to go away from the Society Office. The deceased was caught hold to by them and dragged to a place, which is situated 100 feet away from the Society Office. He was beaten by all the accused 1 to 3 with sticks M.Os. 1 to 3 on the stomach, legs and other parts of the body and all other the accused including A10 kicked the deceased continuously. In the meantime, P.Ws. 4 and 5 came there and intervened. P.W.5 was also attacked by A4 with wooden log. The people who gathered there cried. The accused sped away from the scene of occurrence. 7. P.W.4 the son of the deceased took the deceased to Rasipuram Government Hospital, where P.W.8 gave first aid treatment to the deceased. Then he was referred to the Salem Medical Hospital at 6.00 O‘clock on 17.9.1997. He died in the Salem Medical College Hospital. 8. Meanwhile, at about 3.30 a.m.. on 17.9.1997, P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to Government Hospital, Rasipuram and obtained a complaint (Exhibit P.18) Thus, it is clear as projected by the prosecution that there were three incidents and in two incidents both the deceased party and accused party sustained injuries, which resulted in registering the case in Crime No. 249 of 1997 and 250 of 1997 and the third incident was at 9.00 p.m. near Pillayar Temple in which the deceased was attacked by all the accused, which resulted in registering a case in Crime No. 251 of 1997. 9. There are 7 eye-witnesses. Out of the 7 eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 7 turned hostile. P.W.4, 5 and 6 supported the prosecution case. 9. There are 7 eye-witnesses. Out of the 7 eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 7 turned hostile. P.W.4, 5 and 6 supported the prosecution case. The earliest document is Exhibit P.1 which is Accident Register copy issued by P.W.8. When the first aid treatment was given by P.W.8 to the deceased, the deceased told the doctor that he was attacked by unknown persons. 10. The next document is the complaint, which has been received from the deceased, by P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police, which was marked as Exhibit P.18. In this Exhibit P.18, the deceased stated that he was chased by the accused persons and he took shelter in the Society Office and after he came out, he was taken to a secluded place, where he was beaten by the accused at about 9.00 p.m. 11. Admittedly, there is no reference about the presence of any one of the eye-witnesses including eye-witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, who supported the prosecution case in Exhibit P.18 complaint. In this context, we have to see the evidence of P.W.11, the Village Administrative Officer, who admittedly informed the police at 7.00 p.m.. itself about the incident over phone. While P.W.11 was cross-examined, he would admit that the deceased was sent to the hospital only after the Revenue Officials and Police Officials came to the scene of occurrence. According to him, even after the officials came to the scene of occurrence at 9.00 p.m. and after registration of two cases in Crime Nos. 249 of 1997 and 250 of 1997, they arranged to send the injured persons to the hospital. One of the injured persons, according to P.W.11, is the deceased. If that is so, there is no reason as to why P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, who was present at the scene of occurrence did not choose to get any compliant from the deceased at the spot itself. 12. As indicated above, he was treated by P.W.8 Doctor at about 3.20 a.m. on 17.9.1997. At that time the deceased did not choose to inform the doctor that he sustained injury in the occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. On the other hand, he told that he sustained injury in the occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. due to the beating by unknown persons. At that time the deceased did not choose to inform the doctor that he sustained injury in the occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. On the other hand, he told that he sustained injury in the occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. due to the beating by unknown persons. The prosecution has not established as to why the deceased was sent to the hospital by the police without receiving any complaint and there is no reason for the deceased to give a statement to the Doctor (P.W.8) at about 3.20 a.m., that he was sustained injuries at about 5.30 p.m. Admittedly, there is no reference about the 9.00 p.m. occurrence. 13. Though P.W.18 recorded complaint from the deceased at Rasipuram Government Hospital, he did not choose to record the same in the presence of the doctor. As a matter of fact, P.W.18 would categorically state that no doctor was available at the time when he visited the hospital. This evidence is falsified by the fact that P.W.8. The Doctor had clearly stated that he was available throughout in the hospital till the deceased was referred to the Salem Medical College Hospital. In fact, P.W.8 did not refer to the fact that P.W.18 came to the hospital and recorded the complaint Exhibit P.18 14. A perusal of the Exhibit P.18, the complaint and F.I.R. Exhibit P.19 would indicate that it has been received by the Judicial Magistrate at about 12.00 Noon on the next day, i. e. on 17.9.1997. In the meantime, the deceased died at 6.00 a.m. on 17.9.1997 and the death intimation also was received by P.W.18. According to P.W.18, he altered the FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the information to the Court as well as the Investigation Officer. The eyewitnesses are P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6. As indicated above, the presence of eyewitnesses were not mentioned in Exhibit P.18 complaint given by the deceased. 15. According to P.W.5, she was present at the occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. and she intervened and sustained injury. But, the doctor who examined P.W.5, who sustained injury at 9.00 p.m. occurrence has not been examined in the Court. Further, there is no charge in respect of the attack on P.W.5 as against anyone of the accused. 16. In Ex.P.18, the deceased did not state that he and Chellamuthu entered inside the Society Office and locked from inside. But, the doctor who examined P.W.5, who sustained injury at 9.00 p.m. occurrence has not been examined in the Court. Further, there is no charge in respect of the attack on P.W.5 as against anyone of the accused. 16. In Ex.P.18, the deceased did not state that he and Chellamuthu entered inside the Society Office and locked from inside. On the other hand, P.Ws. 4 and 5 would state that Chellamuthu accompanied the deceased. 17. P.W.6 would state that at the time of occurrence P.Ws. 4 and 5 were not present. On the other hand, P.W.5 came to the scene of occurrence only after the accused left, after beating incident was over. Thus, it would clearly indicate that P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 would not have been present at the time of occurrence. As indicated above, the deceased also did not state in the complaint Exhibit P.18 that any of the witnesses was present. 18. There are no details furnished by the prosecution as to what happened to the case registered in Crime No. 249 of 1997 and 250 of 1997 in respect of the occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. If the statement made by the deceased tot he doctor was that he sustained injury at 5.30 p.m. is true, it is not clear as to whether the deceased died of the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in the first occurrence at 9.00 p.m. or 3rd occurrence at 5.30 p.m. 19. It is the case of the prosecution through Exhibit P.1 and Exhibit P.18 the deceased sustained injuries at both the places on two different occasions. It is not clear that who beat the deceased at 5.30 p.m. occurrence. As mentioned above, the prosecution has not produced any material to show the result of the investigation taken in Crime No. 249 of 1997 and 250 of 1997. The totalling of all these circumstances would indicate that all these occurrences in which both the parties sustained injuries must have been taken place at the same place and at the same time. In short, in our view, the prosecution has not placed entire materials collected during the course of investigation to enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion. 20. In short, in our view, the prosecution has not placed entire materials collected during the course of investigation to enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion. 20. No reason has been given as to why the prosecution has not chosen to place other materials with reference to the injuries sustained by other witnesses and also the injuries sustained by the other accused. As a matter of fact, we are of the firm opinion as indicated above that the deceased and the accused sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction and that the same has not been placed before the Court by placing the materials collected in the other case also. So the Court is constrained to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and not presented the true version, which will make the prosecution case doubtful. Hence, all the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 2002 is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal in S.C.No.2 of 2002 dated 27.6.2002 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 147 I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2005 filed by the State as against the acquittal of the Respondents therein, viz. A4 to A9 is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court on this aspect. Criminal Revision Case No. 252 of 2003 filed by the P.W.5 as against the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6 therein, viz. A4 to A9 is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court on this aspect.