Judgment :- (Appeal against the Judgment dated 15.02.2002 in S.C.No.143 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Salem.) K.N. Basha, J. A-1 to A-3 are the appellants in this case. A-1 has been charged under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing death of the deceased. A-2 and A-3 have been charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for attacking the deceased. A-1 also charged under Section 307 I.P.C. (two counts) for causing injury to P.Ws.2 and 3. A-2 and A-3 have been charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. (two counts) in respect of causing injury to P.Ws.2 and 3. A-3 has been charged under Section 323 (two counts) for causing injury to P.Ws.2 and 3. A-1 and A-2 have been charged under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. (two counts) in respect of causing injury to P.Ws.2 and 3. A-1 to A-3 have been acquitted for the offences charges under Sections 307, 307 read with Section 34, 323, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in respect of causing injuries to P.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem has convicted A-1 under Section 302 I.P.C. and A-2 and A-3 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment by the Judgment dated 15.02.2002 in S.C.No.143 of 2001. The said Judgment is under challenge by the appellants in this appeal. 2. The accused as well as the deceased are the residents of the village called Easwaramurthipalayam. P.Ws.1 and 5 are the sons of the deceased. P.W.2 is the Nephew of the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.4 and the deceased. P.W.4 is the father of P.W.2. P.W.6 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.8 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.7 also related to the deceased as P.W.7's daughter-in-law's mother and the wife of the deceased are sisters. A-1 to A-3 also related to each other. A-1 is the brother-in-law of A-2. A-2 is the son of A-3. A-3 is the maternal uncle of A-1. 3. P.W.6 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.8 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.7 also related to the deceased as P.W.7's daughter-in-law's mother and the wife of the deceased are sisters. A-1 to A-3 also related to each other. A-1 is the brother-in-law of A-2. A-2 is the son of A-3. A-3 is the maternal uncle of A-1. 3. The motive put forward by the prosecution is that 2 1/2 years prior to the date of occurrence, A-3, Krishnan, purchased a land from P.W.6, Cholaiammal, sister of the deceased at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.23,000/- was only paid and the balance amount was agreed to be paid after six months. But A-3 has not paid the balance amount and as a result a panchayat was convened and A-3 was asked to pay the balance amount, if not, to leave the land after getting back the amount paid so far. As a result of this, there was strained feelings between the accused and the deceased party. 4. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 15.10.1999 at 7.00 p.m. P.W.2, Devendran and one Chennan were returning after finishing their work. While they were nearing Easwaramurthipalayam grave yard, A-1 came in a TVS 50, two wheeler, and by coming close as if to dash against P.W.2. When P.W.2 questioned the conduct of A-1, A-1 replied that he would come only in such manner and P.W.2 has no right to question him and beat P.W.2 on his hand. One Chempattayan and Chennan pacified and separated them. But when they came near Kondapatti, P.W.2 was once again attacked by A-1. P.W.8, Manickam pacified and separated them. A-1 again intercepted P.W.2 near Maariyayi temple and beat him. Thereafter, P.W.2 informed the deceased, and P.Ws.1, 3, 4, and 5. All the above said persons went in search of A-1 to question about his attack on P.W.2. At that time, A-1 was present in the house of his uncle A-3 and A-2 was also present. All of them questioned A-1 as to why he beat a small boy P.W.2 and A-1 replied that he would do only like that and they could do whatever they want. Kannammal, wife of A-3 pushed A-1 to A-3 inside the house and closed the doors. A-1 to A-3 opened the door and came out with weapons. A-1 armed with Aruvamanai, M.O.1, A-2 and A-3 armed with sticks, M.Os.2 and 3. Kannammal, wife of A-3 pushed A-1 to A-3 inside the house and closed the doors. A-1 to A-3 opened the door and came out with weapons. A-1 armed with Aruvamanai, M.O.1, A-2 and A-3 armed with sticks, M.Os.2 and 3. A-1 with the Aruvamanai, M.O.1, cut the deceased on his left neck. A-2 beat the deceased with the stick, M.O.2 on the back of his head. A-3 beat the deceased with the stick, M.O.3 on the left side of his flank. The deceased fell down. One Chempattai alias Murugesan held the deceased and took him to a nearby place. P.W.3 by raising hue and cry ran to the scene of occurrence and he was cut by A-1 with M.O.1, Aruvamanai on his right hand. A-2 and A-3 attacked P.W.3 with M.Os.2 and 3 repeatedly. P.W.2 was also attacked by A-1 as he gave a cut on his left shoulder with the Aruvnamanai, M.O.1. A-2 and A-3 attacked P.W.2 with sticks M.Os.2 and 3 on his leg. All of them raised hue and cry and the villagers rushed to the scene. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with M.Os.1 to 3. P.Ws.1 and 5, sons of the deceased took the injured to Mangalapuram Government Hospital. But on the way, the injured died near a patrol bunk and P.Ws.1 and 5 brought the dead body of the deceased to A-3's house. 5. P.W.1 went to Mangalapuram police station and gave a written report, Ex.P.1, to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.10.1999 at 9 p.m. P.W.18 on receipt of Ex.P.1 registered a case in Crime No.337 of 1999 under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. He prepared the Express F.I.R., Ex.P.23 and sent intimation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.20. 6. P.W.12, Doctor, attached to Rasipuram Government Hospital, examined P.W.3 on 15.10.1999 at 9.00 p.m. and found the following injuries: 1. Oblique cut injury 8 X 3 X 7 cms. (depth) over right side of neck. 2. Cut injury 4 x 1 X 1/2 cms over back of left arm. 3. Abrasion 4 X 3 cms over back of left forearm. 4. Abrasion 8 X 6 cms over left side back. Ex.P.12 is the Accident Register. He was of the opinion that the injuries were simple in nature. 7. (depth) over right side of neck. 2. Cut injury 4 x 1 X 1/2 cms over back of left arm. 3. Abrasion 4 X 3 cms over back of left forearm. 4. Abrasion 8 X 6 cms over left side back. Ex.P.12 is the Accident Register. He was of the opinion that the injuries were simple in nature. 7. On 15.10.1999 at 9.30 p.m., P.W.20 received the telephonic message about the occurrence while he was functioning as Sub Inspector of Police, Perukurichi. P.W.20 went to Mangalapuram police station at 10.00 p.m. and perused the documents relating to Crime No.337 of 1999. At 11 a.m. he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.8, in the presence of witnesses. He also prepared the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.24, and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He examined witnesses. Ex.P.25 is the Inquest Report. He recovered M.Os.6 and 7, blood stained earth and sample earth from the scene under Ex.P.5. Thereafter he sent the dead body with a police constable for post-mortem. 8. The Doctor, P.W.11, attached to the Rasipuram Government Hospital, examined P.W.2 on 15.10.1999 at 10.35 p.m. and found one injury viz., Incised wound 4 X 1 X 1 cm over left shoulder. P.W.2 complained chest pain and he was found conscious. The Doctor, P.W.11, also found smell of Alcohol while P.W.2 breathed. According to the Doctor, P.W.11, the injury was simple in nature. Ex.P.11 is the Wound Certificate. 9. The Doctor, P.W.10, attached to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 16.10.1999 at 11.15 a.m. and found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated injury on the lower border of the left side of the neck extending from the midline anteriorly to the midline posteriorly, cutting all the deeper structures including the major blood vessels. 2. Fracture medial and of the left collar bone present. 3. Two lacerated injuries each 3 X 1/2 X 1/2 cm over the right side of the scalp in the parietal region. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 14-18 hours prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital parts in the neck. Ex.P.10 is the post-mortem certificate. 10. P.W.20 continued further investigation and searched for the accused. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 14-18 hours prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital parts in the neck. Ex.P.10 is the post-mortem certificate. 10. P.W.20 continued further investigation and searched for the accused. He went to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram and examined P.W.2 and recovered M.O.4, blood stained shirt, from P.W.2 under Ex.P.13. He also examined P.W.3 and recovered M.O.5, Dhoti, under Ex.P.14. On 18.10.1999, P.W.20 arrested A-1 to A-3 near Kanthasami Temple, Easwaramurthipalayam village. P.W.20 recovered M.Os.1 to 3, Aruvamanai and sticks, produced by A-1 on 18.10.1999. He also recovered M.Os.8 and 9, blood stained clothes of the accused. He sent the Material Objects for chemical examination and received the Chemical Examiner's Report, Ex.P.17, and Serologist Report, Ex.P.18. P.W.20 further taken photographs, Exs.P.19 to 22, through P.W.17, Photographer, and the photograph negatives are M.Os.13 to 16. 11. Meanwhile, A-1 and A-3, in this case, filed a petition under Section 54 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, stating that both of them have sustained injuries at the hands of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 on the date of occurrence of this case viz., 15.10.1999 and therefore, they have prayed for referring them to Government Hospital for treatment. This application was filed by A-1 and A-3 on 26.10.1999 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, passed an order, Ex.C.2, on 01.11.1999 directing the respondents to produce them before the Government Hospital, Rasipuram for treatment and after treatment they should be sent back to the prison. Doctor, D.W.1 examined A-1 to A-3 on 01.11.1997 and issued Accident Register Extract to both of them, Ex.C.3 and 4. 12. Further, P.W.20 examined remaining witnesses and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on 08.12.1999. 13. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20, filed Exs.P.1 to 26 and marked M.Os.1 to 16. 14. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied the offence and each one of them filed a written statement. 15. 13. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20, filed Exs.P.1 to 26 and marked M.Os.1 to 16. 14. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied the offence and each one of them filed a written statement. 15. The sum and substance of the statement of A-1 is that only the prosecution party were the aggressors and P.W.2 unnecessarily quarrelled with him while he was coming in his TVS 50 vehicle and P.W.2 also abused him in filthy language. Since A-1 frightened about the attack by P.W.2 and other prosecution party, he has to take shelter in the house of A-3, his maternal uncle. While A-1 and A-3 were talking in front of the house of A-3, P.Ws.1 to 5 came with sticks and threatened A-1 with dire consequences. A-3's wife one Kannammal said to the prosecution party that whatever may be the problem that can be discussed on the next day morning and since there was danger to the life of A-1 and A-3, Kannammal/wife of A-3 pushed both of them inside the house. The deceased pulled the hand of A-1. Thereafter the prosecution party trespassed into the house of A-3 and beat A-3 on his hand, leg, chest and back. It is the further case of A-1 that he was also beaten by the prosecution party. Further, the deceased attempted to beat him on his head with a stick threatening to kill him and at that time he took the Aruvamanai from the kitchen and gave a single stab on the neck of the deceased and the deceased fell down. During the course of scuffle between the accused and the prosecution party, witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 sustained injuries. A-1 also stated in his statement that A-2 was not present at that time. He further stated that after that incident he along with A-3 went to Mangalapuram police station with the weapon Aruvamanai and gave a report which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police. A-1's further case is that a false case has been foisted against him and A-2 and A-3. While A-2 came in search of A-1 and A-3, he was also detained in the police station. Based on the application filed by A-1 to A-3 under Section 54 Cr.P.C., they have sent to Government Hospital for medical examination. A-1's further case is that a false case has been foisted against him and A-2 and A-3. While A-2 came in search of A-1 and A-3, he was also detained in the police station. Based on the application filed by A-1 to A-3 under Section 54 Cr.P.C., they have sent to Government Hospital for medical examination. Exs.C-1 and C-2 are the petition filed under Section 54 Cr.P.C. and the order of the Magistrate respectively. In order to show that the occurrence took place inside the house of A-3, A-1 had also taken photographs through D.W.2. Exs.D.1 to D.3 are the photographs. A-2 and A-3 also filed same written statement. It is the case of A-2 that he was not present at the time of occurrence. 16. On the side of defence D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D.1 to 3 were filed and Court Exhibits C.1 to C.4 were marked. 17. D.W.1 is the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, on receipt of Ex.C.2 examined A-1 and A-3 on 01.11.1997. The Doctor, D.W.1 issued accident register, Ex.C.3 for A-3 and Ex.C.4 for A-1. The injuries noted in Ex.C.3 in respect of A-3 are as follows: 1. A mild swelling middle of the left upper arm outer side. 2. Pain on the back lumbar area. 3. Two healed abrasions over the right knee. 4. Multiple healed abrasions in left elbow. 5. Chest pain. The injuries noted by the Doctor, D.W.1, in Ex.C.4 in respect of A-1 are as follows: 1. Multiple healed abrasions in front side of right knee. 2. Diffuse swelling not well defined outer aspect of middle of left thigh. 3. Pain over the sacral region while bending forward. 4. Pain both side chest while deep breath. 5. Pain lower abdomen 6. Neck pain. D.W.2 is the photographer who speaks about taking photographs of blood stains found inside the house of A-3. Exs.D.1 to D.3 are the photographs. 18. Relying upon the materials placed and evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution, found all the accused, A-1 to A-3, guilty for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced A-1 to A-3 for life imprisonment. Exs.D.1 to D.3 are the photographs. 18. Relying upon the materials placed and evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution, found all the accused, A-1 to A-3, guilty for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced A-1 to A-3 for life imprisonment. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution in respect of the injuries caused to P.Ws.2 and 3 and acquitted A-1 to A-3 for the charges under Section 307, 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., 323 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence A-1 to A-3 have filed the present appeal. 19. Heard Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the first Appellant and Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for Appellants 2 and 3. 20. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for first appellant made the following submissions: 1. That even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the prosecution party are the aggressors as they went to the house of A-3 for questioning A1 about his attack on P.W.2, thereafter, the occurrence took place. There were more number of persons on the prosecution side viz.,P.Ws.1 to 7 including the deceased were present and on the other hand only A-1 to A-3 were present at the time of occurrence. P.W.2 also admitted in his cross examination that six persons went in search of A-1. 2. A-1 and A-3 also sustained injuries. But the prosecution has not explained the injuries found on them. 3. P.W.4 stated in his cross-examination that all of them went in search of A-1 for questioning him about his attack on P.W.2 and there was a wordy quarrel between the prosecution party and the accused and they have pulled A-1. P.W.4 further stated that there was a free-fight between the prosecution party and the accused and thereby both sides sustained injuries. 4. The sequences of events clearly shows that A-1 exercise his right of self-defence. 5. The occurrence started with a wordy quarrel and resulted in the deceased sustaining a single stab by A-1 and therefore absolutely no intention on the part of the A-1 to cause the death of the deceased. 6. 4. The sequences of events clearly shows that A-1 exercise his right of self-defence. 5. The occurrence started with a wordy quarrel and resulted in the deceased sustaining a single stab by A-1 and therefore absolutely no intention on the part of the A-1 to cause the death of the deceased. 6. The Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case in respect of the attack made on P.Ws.2 and 3 by the accused and therefore, the entire prosecution case is doubtful since the occurrence could not have taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 21. Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant Nos.2 to 3 made the following contentions: 1. In Ex.P.25, Inquest Report at column 15, it is mentioned only about the land dispute between A-3 and P.W.6 and there is absolutely no mention about the quarrel between A-1 and P.W.2 while A-1 was coming in his TVS 50, two wheeler. The immediate motive put forward by the prosecution is only the quarrel between A-1 and P.W.2 while A-1 was coming in his TVS 50, two wheeler and therefore the prosecution has not come forward with the true version. 2. There is no clear, cogent and consistent version in respect of the part played by A-2 and A-3. 3. The overt acts alleged against A-3 is that he attacked the deceased with M.O.3, Stick, on the left side of his flank. But as per the medical evidence, Ex.P.10, post-mortem certificate, there is no corresponding injury was found by the Doctor, P.W.10. 4. P.W.7, one of the eye-witnesses in this case, has not at all whispered a word about the role played by A-2 and A-3 in respect of the attack on the deceased as well as the witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3. 5. There are more persons on the prosecution side while they went to question A-1 and the occurrence took place in front of the house of A-3. Therefore the prosecution party are the aggressors and the entire occurrence took place without any premeditation due to sudden quarrel and therefore Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. may be invoked. 22. On these aspects we have heard Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 23. We have given our anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire records. 24. 22. On these aspects we have heard Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 23. We have given our anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire records. 24. On going through the entire records including the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the documents marked by the prosecution, we are constrained to state at the outset that the prosecution has not come forward with true version. It is relevant to be stated at this juncture that the report given by A-1 was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. P.W.20, the Investigating Officer in this case has admitted in his cross-examination that he has filed the wound certificates relating to the injuries of A-1 and A-3 while filing the charge sheet. But subsequently, he denied his version and stated he has not filed the wound certificates of A-1 and A-3 and he has not aware about the same. P.W.20 also stated about his ignorance of A-1 and A-3 sustaining injuries and both of them filed the petition requesting the Magistrate to sent them for medical examination. The fact remains that A-1 and A-3 as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, dated 01.11.1999, sent for medical examination accompanied by one Guruvan, police constable, Grade-I. The defence placed reliance on Exs.C.1, the petition filed under Section 54 Cr.P.C. for referring the accused Nos.1 and 3 for medical examination as well as C.2 order of the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram dated 01.11.1999 and the accident register, Exs.C.3 and 4 issued in respect of the injuries sustained by A-1 and A-3. The records clearly shows that A-1 and A-3 were examined by the Doctor, P.W.11 on 01.11.1999 and the charge sheet in this case was filed by P.W.20 on 08.12.1999. Therefore, the version of P.W.20, Inspector of Police that he has not aware about the injuries sustained by A-1 and A-3, on the face of it is unbelievable and unacceptable. 25. It is very unfortunate that there is absolutely no explanation from the Investigating Officer, P.W.20 as to why he has not made any enquiry in respect of the injuries sustained by A-1 and A-3. It is also relevant to be noted at this juncture that A-1 to A-3 have been arrested by P.W.20 on 18.10.1999 and thereafter they have been remanded to Judicial custody. It is also relevant to be noted at this juncture that A-1 to A-3 have been arrested by P.W.20 on 18.10.1999 and thereafter they have been remanded to Judicial custody. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram passed on the petition filed by the accused clearly shows that A-1 and A-3 were taken treatment at the Jail Hospital and only on their application filed under Section 54 Cr.P.C., they have been referred to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram for treatment. The petition filed by the accused under Section 54 Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.C.1, order of the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, dated 01.11.1999, Ex.C2 coupled with the accident registers Exs.C.3 and 4 makes it crystal clear that A-1 and A-3 sustained injuries on the date of occurrence. The version of A-1 that he has given a report to P.W.18, Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be ignored. The evidence of P.W.4 probabilises the defence version P.W.4, eye-witness to the occurrence categorically stated in his cross-examination that there was a free-fight between the accused and the prosecution party and both the parties sustained injuries. It is also clearly stated by P.W.4 in his cross-examination that A-1 was pulled by the prosecution party while he was present at the house of A-3. The undisputed fact remains as admitted by the prosecution is that the deceased and other witnesses P.W.1 and other witnesses went to the house of A-3 and only thereafter the occurrence took place and therefore, it is crystal clear that A-1 and A-3 must have been attacked by the prosecution party. But none of the witness examined on the side of the prosecution explained the injury sustained by A-1 and A-3. P.W.4 though admitted that there was a free-fight but he has stated that he was not aware about A-1 and A-3 sustaining injuries. It is also relevant to be noted that P.W.7 yet another eye-witness admitted in his examination that the pandal put up in front of the houe of A-3 was found damaged. The non-explanation of injuries sustained by A-1 to A-3 coupled with the occurrence admittedly took place in front of the house of A-3 throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The non-explanation of injuries sustained by A-1 to A-3 coupled with the occurrence admittedly took place in front of the house of A-3 throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lakshmi Singh V. State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 has held in that, "In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. AIR 1968 SC 1281 and AIR 1975 SC 1674 Rel. on." The Apex Court has further held in the same decision that when the prosecution does not give any explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused, it is not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the chaff. The truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed together that it is difficult to separate them. Indeed if one tries to do so, it will amount to reconstructing a new case for the prosecution which cannot be done in a criminal case. 26. A Division Bench of this Court consisting one of us has also taken a similar view by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court stated supra, in Pukkan Chellaiah V. State By Inspector Of Police, Trichy reported in 2002 M.L.J. (Crl.) 151. In that case also two accused sustained injuries. But the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by them. Further, in that case also, the accused went to the police station for giving the report. However, they were detained in the police station itself, but subsequently the accused were sent for medical examination as they had sustained injuries. In that case also two accused sustained injuries. But the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by them. Further, in that case also, the accused went to the police station for giving the report. However, they were detained in the police station itself, but subsequently the accused were sent for medical examination as they had sustained injuries. Thereafter the Doctor who had examined the accused issued wound certificates and therefore, it was held that the defence version is substantiated. Therefore, the Division Bench took the view that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version resulting in rejection of the entire prosecution case as false. 27. The prosecution, in this case, has not only come forward with inconsistent version but also has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence by not presenting the true version. The admitted version of the prosecution that P.Ws.1 to 6 along with the deceased went to the house of A-3 in order to question A-1 attacking P.W.2 and the occurrence took place in front of the house of A-3. It is also relevant to be noted that A-1 was pulled by the deceased party from the house of A-3 as per the admission of P.W.4. The categorical statement of the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 is that the occurrence took place only after they questioned A-1 attacking P.W.2 by going to the house of A-3 and further as stated above, A-1 was pulled by the deceased party which makes crystal clear that the prosecution party were the aggressors. Further, there is no consistent version in respect of the role played by A-2 and A-3 and also the overt acts attributed to them. On these admitted facts, the admission of P.W.4 to the effect that there was a free fight between the parties and as a result, both parties sustained injuries throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version as put forth and therefore, the occurrence could not have taken place as alleged by the prosecution and the entire prosecution story has become highly doubtful. Coupled with the above infirmities, the non-explanation of injuries sustained by A-1 and A-3 in the course of the same occurrence resulted in a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the genesis and origin of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with the true version of the occurrence. For the above said reasons, we are left with no other alternative except to reject the prosecution case in toto. 28. The appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A-1 to A-3. They are acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled.