Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the judgment made in C.A.No.15/2004 by the learned Additional Addl.District and Sessions Judge - cum - Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, dated 29.10.2004 confirming the judgment made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet in C.C.No.64 of 2002 by order dated 29.12.2003.) The petitioners in this Criminal Revision Case are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.64 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet, who were prosecuted for alleged offences under Sections 326, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) A.1 and A.2 are brothers. A.3 is cousin of A.1 and A.2. P.Ws 2 and 5 are sons of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are relatives of P.W.1. P.W.1, A.1 and A.2 own adjacent lands. There is common channel to take water to their fields. On 13.12.2001, at about 9.00 a.m., a dispute arose between the prosecution party and the accused as to whose turn it was to take water. The allegation is that the accused diverted the water which was flowing to the field of P.w.1 and therefore P.Ws 1 and 5 questioned them in which there was a free fight between both the parties. A.1 is said to have used a crow bar and attacked P.W.1 on the head. P.W.1 warded off the assault by her hand. Therefore there was a fracture on her right hand. At the same time, A.2 attacked P.W.1 on her left back and caused simple injury and A.3 attacked P.W.5 with a spade and caused simple injury. It is also alleged that the accused were threatening that they will kill the prosecution party. Therefore the accused were charged under Section 506(ii) IPC besides A.1 was charged for the offence under Section 326 IPC. A.2 and A.3 were charged for the offence under Sections 506 (ii) B and 324 IPC. After the occurrence the accused left the crow bar, spade and ran away. (b) P.W.2 took P.Ws 1 and 5 who were injured to Government Hospital, Udumalpet. P.W.9, the Doctor at Udumalpet Government Hospital examined P.W.1 and found contusion on P.W.1s right hand and referred her for further treatment to Coimbatore Government Hospital and P.W.9 issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate. On the same day, the P.W.9 examined P.W.5 also and found simple injury and issued Ex.P.5 which is a copy of Accident register. P.W.9, the Doctor at Udumalpet Government Hospital examined P.W.1 and found contusion on P.W.1s right hand and referred her for further treatment to Coimbatore Government Hospital and P.W.9 issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate. On the same day, the P.W.9 examined P.W.5 also and found simple injury and issued Ex.P.5 which is a copy of Accident register. P.W.10, Dr.Banu Prakash has spoken to about Ex.P.6, wound certificate issued to P.W.1 to show that there was a fracture on the right hand. (c) P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police received intimation about the treatment to P.W.1 at Udumalpet Government Hospital and therefore he went to the Hospital and recorded statement of P.W.1 which is Ex.P.1 and based on that he registered a case in Crime No.248 of 2001. The printed FIR is Ex.P.7. He went to the place of occurrence on 14.12.2001 morning and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.8, rough sketch. At the scene of occurrence he seized M.O.1 crow bar and M.O.2 spade under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.3. At 8.00 pm., he arrested the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After examining the Doctors he field final report against the accused for alleged offences mentioned supra. 3. Before the trial court, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. on behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused have denied the same as false. 4. on behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused have denied the same as false. 4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that offences alleged against A.1 under Sections 506 (ii) and 326 IPC and A.2 under Section 506 (ii) IPC and A.3 under Sections 506(ii) and 324 IPC are proved and sentenced A.1 under Section 326 IPC to undergo imprisonment for 2 years R.I and fine of Rs.2,500/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, under Section 506 (ii) IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, A.2 under Section 506 (ii) IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/= in default to under simple imprisonment for one month and A.3 under Section 324 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1500/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and under Section 506(ii) IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, who heard the appeal and dismissed the same confirming the judgment and conviction of the accused. Aggrieved over the same, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. 5. Mr.Ashok Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that A.1 and A.2 also sustained injuries in the occurrence and A.1 lodged a complaint on the same day at 10.00 a.m., which was registered as Crime No.247/2001 under Sections 506 (ii) and 324 IPC and A.1 and A.2 were sent to Hospital with a Police Memo and they were treated in the Hospital. But, during trial, the complaint of A.1 and wound certificate issued to A.1 and A.2 were not produced before the Court. The Police also have not referred the case of A.1 as mistake of fact and they have violated the provisions of Clause 588A of the Madras Police Standing Orders. 6. But, during trial, the complaint of A.1 and wound certificate issued to A.1 and A.2 were not produced before the Court. The Police also have not referred the case of A.1 as mistake of fact and they have violated the provisions of Clause 588A of the Madras Police Standing Orders. 6. Learned senior counsel would further contend that when P.W.1 was treated at the Hospital she has simply stated that they were attacked with three known persons with a spade and she has not mentioned about the attack by crow bar. P.W.5 has also mentioned so and has failed to mention the use of crow bar by A.1. During cross examination of P.W.11, Investigating Officer, he admitted that the accused lodged a complaint and he arranged to send them to the Hospital for treatment by issuing a Memo. In fact, the complaint given by A.1 is earlier in point of time. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 9.00 am.,The complaint is lodged by him at 10.00 am., and case was registered as Crime No.247/2001 for the offences under Sections 506 (ii) and 324 IPC against P.W.1 and others. On the other hand, P.W.1 who has given the complaint has not come to the Police Station immediately, but she along with P.W.5 have gone to the Hospital where their statements were recorded at 7.45 p.m., and a case was registered at 8.15 pm., The explanation given by P.W.1 is that there was a delay in going to the Hospital for taking treatment and therefore there is a delay in lodging the complaint, which was accepted by both the courts below is not correct and true explanation. 7. P.W.1 was treated at 11.00 a.m., on 13.12.2001. Though the complaint was said to have been received on the same day, it was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11 only at 7.45 pm., at the Government Hospital, Udumalpet. 7. P.W.1 was treated at 11.00 a.m., on 13.12.2001. Though the complaint was said to have been received on the same day, it was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11 only at 7.45 pm., at the Government Hospital, Udumalpet. The contention of the prosecution is that there was a delay in taking P.Ws1 and 5 by P.W.2 to Hospital, which has resulted in lodging the complaint, cannot be true because P.Ws 1 and 5 were admitted in the Hospital at 11.00 a.m., itself and their statement were recorded only at 7.45 pm., The learned Judicial Magistrate has wrongly come to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the prosecution that it took time to take the injured to Hospital and therefore there is a delay is not correct. 8. It is the admitted evidence of P.W.11, who investigated the case that A.1 and A.2 also sustained injuries in the said occurrence and they gave a complaint on 13.12.2001 at 10.00 a.m., i.e., one hour after the occurrence, based on the said complaint a case was registered in Crime No.247/2001 against P.Ws 1 and others. But there is no evidence as to what happened to the said complaint of A.1 based on which a case was registered by the respondent-police. In a situation where there is a case and counter case are registered, the Police are bound to investigate both and find out who is the aggressor and file charge sheet against the aggressor. 9. In 1990 L.W.(Cri) page 151 (Sakkarai Ramaswamy Vs. Alangara Muni and Murugan), a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "7. Thus, the two versions projected, each widely differing from the other, cannot at all be said to reflect the reality of the situation. It is perhaps possible that one of the two versions can be true or both the versions can be false, as being distorted versions. The Police under the extraordinary powers of investigation can do well to collect all materials, ascertain the truth and project the real version before Court in the form of a positive report under Section 173 Crl.P.C., besides filing a negative report as regards the other version appearing to be ex facie false. The Police under the extraordinary powers of investigation can do well to collect all materials, ascertain the truth and project the real version before Court in the form of a positive report under Section 173 Crl.P.C., besides filing a negative report as regards the other version appearing to be ex facie false. If the Police are unable to come to any definite conclusion and feel that both the versions are false, as being distorted versions of the occurrence it is perfectly open to them to file a negative report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., xx xx xx xx xx 19. The pit-falls of the investigation being perfunctory, slip-shod and lop-sided could have been avoided by the investigating machinery if they had the mind to scrupulously follow the instructions contained in Clause 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders and therefore it appears to us necessary to have a close look at the aforesaid salient provisions. For better appreciation and understanding, it is necessary to reproduce Clause 588-A which runs as follows:- "588-A Charge Sheets in cases and counter cases:- In a complaint and counter complaint obviously arising out of the same transaction the investigating officer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses viz., (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors; or(2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. When the investigating officer proceeds on the bases of the complaint it is his duty to exhibit the counter complaint in the court and also to prove medical certificate of persons wounded on the opposite side. He should place before the court a definite case which he asks it to accept. The investigating officer in such cases should not accept in toto one complaint and examine only witne4sses who support it and give no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the other side. The truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with either complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts are placed before the court to enable it to arrive at the truth and a just decision. If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is difficult, viz., to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the public prosecutor of the District and act accordingly. If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is difficult, viz., to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the public prosecutor of the District and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law and the complaint or the counter complainant as the case may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in F.96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police." 20. Pertinent it is to restate the suggestions made by one of us (David Annoussamy,J) regarding the interpretation and importance of the salient provisions adumbrated in the aforesaid standing orders getting reflected by way of certain observations made in Criminal Revision Case No.735 of 1985 (Somu and give others Vs. State) dated 21.4.1989, which are as follows:- This order contains very salutary provision, but there are two points which in my considered opinion require reconsideration. In the first place, it allows to the investigating officer the choice only between two courses. There may be cases in which both the parties should be brought before the court for the offences committed by them. The Police has felt the lacuna and now they are bringing some times both parties before the court for the offence affray. But that may not be fully suitable because affray is a very minor offence and when serious injuries have been inflicted and even death occurred as in the present case, it will not be sufficient to indict the culprits from both sides only for an offence of affray. The second point which needs reconsideration is that the Order enjoins the investigating officer to charge the case, where the accused were the aggressors. Here also, the aggression may be of various kinds. The transaction may start by wordy quarrel, then come some minor acts of violence, then stronger acts of violence without any weapon, then weapons of more or less dangerous nature come into play. All occurrences are not of the same type and the sequence of events varies considerably. So at what stage the real aggression started is some times difficult to determine. Therefore, it should be open to the investigating officer to adopt a third course also, viz. All occurrences are not of the same type and the sequence of events varies considerably. So at what stage the real aggression started is some times difficult to determine. Therefore, it should be open to the investigating officer to adopt a third course also, viz. charging both parties arraying them as `A' party and `B' party each for the offences committed by them and unfolding before the court the whole sequence of events ad they happened. Then it will be easy for the court to fix the exact responsibility of each one of them for his acts. No doubt in such a case, it would be open to the parties to resort to compounding when it is permissible or to plead self defence whenever it is justified. If impartial investigation has been made and if the investigating officer has come to truth and indicted each party according to his overtacts, there may not be great difficulty for having the truth unfolded before the court, because the accused in one case will be the prosecution witness in the other one and, therefore, subjected to cross examination. So three courses should be open to the investigating officer. (i) If there is clear aggression by one party, positive report under Section 173 can be filed, against that party and negative report may be filed against the other. (ii) If both parties have been in aggressive mood, without possibility to determine the aggressor, and if the sequence of events is clear and offences have been committed by each of the party without any justification, to file positive reports under Section 173 against both the parties (iii) If none of the above two courses is possible, to file negative reports in respect of both the cases. This is a matter to be considered in depth. At any rate, the present provisions of Section 588-A are deficient to some extent and proper solution has to be arrived at so that each one is indicted and punished for the act he has committed and for which he has no excuse". 10. As per the provisions of S.O.588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders the case filed by A.1 also ought to have been investigated and a final report ought to have been filed either charging the accused or referring it as a mistake of fact. But the Police have not done so. 10. As per the provisions of S.O.588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders the case filed by A.1 also ought to have been investigated and a final report ought to have been filed either charging the accused or referring it as a mistake of fact. But the Police have not done so. In the prosecution evidence also, there is no explanation as to how A.1 and A.2 sustained injuries. Therefore, failure to explain the injuries on the accused would show that the version given by prosecution witnesses is not completely true. In the above circumstances, the revision petitioners are entitled for acquittal. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted and the fine amount paid shall be refunded to the revision petitioners.