Judgment :- (Criminal Appeals against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore in S.C.No.17 of 2002 dated 24.03.2003.) Common Judgment: M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The appellants in Crl.A.No.638 of 2003 are A1, A2 and A3. A1 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. (2 counts), A2 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 325 and 324 I.P.C. (3 counts) and A3 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. Challenging the above conviction, Crl.A.No.638 of 2003 has been filed. In respect of acquittal of A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., the State has filed Crl.A.No.1160 of 2004. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: a) The deceased Balan is the brother of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5. P.W.4 is the son of P.W.1. A1, A2 and A3 are brothers. The accused and the deceased are cousins. The land in question originally belonged to A2 and the same was purchased by the father of the deceased. After purchase, the possession was handed over to the deceased. Near the said land, there is a poramboke land, which is in possession of A2. There is a dispute over taking water to the land in question through the poramboke land. The deceased party tried to irrigate the lands by taking water through the poramboke land, which is in possession of the accused, but the same was prevented periodically. b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 29.03.2001 at about 7 a.m., P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased went to the said poramboke land and started digging a channel in the poramboke land for taking water to his land. At that time, A1 to A3 came there. They questioned the deceased and the witnesses as to how the channel could be dug in the land which is in their possession. So saying, A1 to A3, armed with knives attacked the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.5 and 6 went to the scene after hearing the noise. P.W.5 after noticing that the deceased and the witnesses sustained injuries, caught hold of A1 and attacked him. He attacked A3 also and caused injuries. Thereafter, the accused ran away. c) The deceased and the witnesses were taken to Panruti hospital and on the way, the deceased died. P.Ws.5 and 6 went to the scene after hearing the noise. P.W.5 after noticing that the deceased and the witnesses sustained injuries, caught hold of A1 and attacked him. He attacked A3 also and caused injuries. Thereafter, the accused ran away. c) The deceased and the witnesses were taken to Panruti hospital and on the way, the deceased died. He was declared dead by the doctor and others were treated at the Panruti hospital. Intimation was sent to the police station. P.W.14 Head Constable attached to Pudupettai Police Station went to hospital and received a complaint from P.W.1. Ex.P1 is the complaint and a case was registered in Crime No.110 of 2001 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 I.P.C at 10.00 a.m on 29.03.2001. d) On receipt of the message, P.W.17 Inspector of Police went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and the inquest report is Ex.P27. Thereafter, he went to the scene and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P28. He also effected recovery of spade, bloodstained shirt, bloodstained earth and sample earth etc., examined P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in the hospital. e) In the meantime, P.W.8, the doctor attached to Panruti Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued postmortem certificate Ex.P2 he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to the vital organs, heart and lung sustained. f) P.W.12 doctor attached to Panruti Hospital examined the other injured witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and issued wound certificates viz., Exs.P10, P8, P7, P9 and P11 respectively. g) On the intimation given by the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, the Sub Inspector of Police went to the hospital and recorded a complaint from Vasuki and the same was registered in Crime No.111 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 I.P.C., which is a counter complaint. h) A2 got treatment in the Panruti hospital. A1 and A3 got themselves admitted in the Pondicherry hospital. i) On 31.03.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.17 Inspector of Police arrested A1 and A3 at 10.30 a.m. On the confession of A1 and A3, M.O.1 and M.O.4 were recovered. j) On 11.04.2001, P.W.17 arrested A2 and on his confession, M.O.3 knife was recovered. He sent the materials for chemical examination and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. j) On 11.04.2001, P.W.17 arrested A2 and on his confession, M.O.3 knife was recovered. He sent the materials for chemical examination and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. k) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P28 were filed and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. l) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their participation in the occurrence. On the side of the defence, Ex.D1 counter complaint given by Vasuki and Ex.D2 wound certificate issued in respect of the injuries sustained by Vasuki were marked. m) The trial Court accepted the prosecution case and convicted A1 for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. (2 counts) However, A2 and A3 have been acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. A2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 and 324 I.P.C. (3 counts) and A3 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. Challenging the conviction, all the accused have filed Crl.A.No.638 of 2003 and in respect of acquittal of A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., the State has filed Crl.A.No.1160 of 2004. This is the subject matter of appeals before this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the entire records. 4. According to the prosecution, the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased went to the poramboke land to dig the channel to enable them to take water to their land. There is no dispute that the said poramboke land is in possession of the accused. As a matter of fact, the accused was ready to sell his poramboke land also to the father of the deceased, but they declined to purchase it. However, they wanted to use the poramboke land for digging the channel for taking water to the land. This was objected to by the accused. 5. On the date of occurrence, these witnesses and the deceased went to the scene in order to dig the channel. As usual, this was objected to by the accused. There was a quarrel and all the accused attacked the deceased and the witnesses and in turn, the witnesses also attacked the accused. This was objected to by the accused. 5. On the date of occurrence, these witnesses and the deceased went to the scene in order to dig the channel. As usual, this was objected to by the accused. There was a quarrel and all the accused attacked the deceased and the witnesses and in turn, the witnesses also attacked the accused. However, the complaint has been given by P.W.1 to the Head Constable and there is no mention about the attack on the accused with reference to the injuries sustained by them. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would clearly show that the accused sustained injury during the course of same transaction. On the other hand, P.W.4 would state that he saw the accused sustained injuries in the occurrence. As a matter of fact, P.W.5 has been examined to speak about the fact as to how the accused sustained injuries. 6. A reading of the entire evidence of the eye witnesses including the evidence of P.W.17 Investigating Officer would indicate that both the accused and the prosecution parties sustained injuries in the same occurrence during the course of same transaction. In fact, P.W.17 would categorically admit in the cross-examination that in respect of the injuries sustained by both parties, two complaints had been received by the police. The complaint given by P.W.1 was registered in Crime No.110 of 2001 and the counter complaint received from one Vasuki, who sustained injuries, was registered in Crime No.111 of 2001. So, it is clear that in the same occurrence, during the course of same transaction, there was fight between both the parties. 7. According to the prosecution, the deceased party have got a right to use the channel to take the water to the land. According to the defence, they cannot use the poramboke land even as a channel since the poramboke land is in possession of the accused. As such, even admittedly, there is no dispute between these parties for a long period over themselves. But, the point is that the materials placed by the prosecution through the witnesses would clearly indicate that both the parties sustained injuries in the same occurrence and in respect of the same occurrence, two complaints have been received at the police station, one given by P.W.1 and another by Vasuki. But, the point is that the materials placed by the prosecution through the witnesses would clearly indicate that both the parties sustained injuries in the same occurrence and in respect of the same occurrence, two complaints have been received at the police station, one given by P.W.1 and another by Vasuki. In the complaint given by P.W.1, there is a reference about the injuries on the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4. As per the complaint given by Vasuki, the injured persons are A1 to A3 and Vasuki. As such, there is no dispute that both the complaints have been treated as a case and counter. But unfortunately, P.W.17 has not taken care to investigate the counter case, which has been registered in Crime No.111 of 2001. As a matter of fact, A1 and A3, who sustained injuries in the occurrence, were admitted in JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. 8. P.W.16, the doctor attached to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry would mark the documents Exs.P23 and P25 referring about the injuries on the vital parts of the body of A1 and A3. Similarly, P.W.9, the doctor, who was attached to Panruti Hospital, examined A2 would state that A2 sustained injuries on various parts of the body for which he was treated and Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. Similarly, Vasuki was admitted in the Panruti hospital, for which Accident Register Ex.D2 was issued and the same has been marked. There is an abrasion on the forehead and incised wound on her right arm. 9. When this is admitted by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.17, it is the bounden duty of the Police Officer to investigate both the matters as case and counter and find out who are the aggressors and to file a charge sheet against the persons, who are the aggressors and refer the other matter. It is quite unfortunate to see that P.W.17 originally pleaded innocence in respect of the counter complaint given by Vasuki. When he was further cross-examined, he admitted that both cases are case and counter and both the occurrences took place in the same transaction and counter complaint was received in Crime No.111 of 2001 and the counter complainant Vasuki was admitted in the hospital and Ex.D2 is the wound certificate. 10. When he was further cross-examined, he admitted that both cases are case and counter and both the occurrences took place in the same transaction and counter complaint was received in Crime No.111 of 2001 and the counter complainant Vasuki was admitted in the hospital and Ex.D2 is the wound certificate. 10. It is noticed from the evidence of P.W.17 that he initially deposed that he did not know anything about the complaint which has been given by Vasuki. Virtually, there is no investigation on the complaint given by Vasuki, even though it was registered as counter complaint in Crime No.111 of 2001 for various offences including the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. 11. As indicated above, Vasuki sustained injuries on the forehead and arm. Though there is an attempt on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries of A1 and A3, there is no attempt to explain the injuries sustained by A2 and Vasuki. It is not the case of the prosecution that it is the counter complaint, since the accused sustained injuries in some other transaction or some other occurrence. On the other hand, the prosecution has chosen to examine the doctors, who treated A1 and A3 at Pondicherry and A2 at Panruti. There is no reason as to why the particulars about the investigation in respect of the counter complaint have not been placed before the Court. As a matter of fact, Vasuki's counter complaint has been suppressed. 12. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to investigate into the counter complaint and even if it had been decided to refer the matter, the witnesses should have been produced to show that the counter complaint has been investigated and ultimately, the matter had been referred. There is no reason as to why the counter complaint given by Vasuki has not been investigated. There is no reason as to why the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded statement from Vasuki at the hospital, has not been examined. As such, there is no investigation at all in respect of the counter complaint. 13. On the other hand, P.W.17 Inspector of Police, in the chief examination stated that he did not know anything about the counter complaint. As indicated above, in the cross-examination, he admitted that the counter complaint was registered, but he was not able to say what happened to the investigation. 14. 13. On the other hand, P.W.17 Inspector of Police, in the chief examination stated that he did not know anything about the counter complaint. As indicated above, in the cross-examination, he admitted that the counter complaint was registered, but he was not able to say what happened to the investigation. 14. Though we are not very much impressed by the point with reference to the private defence, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt mainly on the reason that the Investigating Officer has failed to perform his duty of investigating both the cases. This is also a case where one person died and four other persons sustained very serious injuries. This is a case where the accused also sustained very serious injuries on the vital parts of the body. In that context, P.W.17 must have investigated both the complaints and tried to find out the truth. This has not been done. On the other hand, there is suppression by P.W.17 with reference to the materials relating to the counter complaint. 15. It is settled law that when the counter complaint with reference to the injuries on the accused has been registered and there is no investigation on the counter complaint, naturally, it goes to the root of the matter which enures the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has not only failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but also suppressed the origin of occurrence and the relevant materials. Therefore, we feel that this is a fit case where the accused are to be given the benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted. 16. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are set aside and the appeal in Crl.A.No.638 of 2003 is allowed. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the accused. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State in Crl.A.No.1160 of 2004 is dismissed. 17. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to make some adverse remarks against the Investigating Officer P.W.17. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the accused. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State in Crl.A.No.1160 of 2004 is dismissed. 17. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to make some adverse remarks against the Investigating Officer P.W.17. P.W.17 not only has failed to investigate the matter on the counter complaint, but also pleaded innocence before the Court that he did not know anything about the counter complaint which had been admittedly registered on the complaint given by Vasuki. It is nothing but a false statement made by P.W.17 before the Court. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to conduct enquiry with reference to that against the said Police Officer and take appropriate action.