Judgment : M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Totally, there are six accused. They have been convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 324, 302 read with Section 149, 302 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Challenging the same, A-4 Amanullah filed Criminal Appeal No.981 of 2003 and A-1 to A-3, namely, Mike set Ganesan, Pandalkara Raj, Brandy kadai Pommusamy and A-5 and A-6, namely, Selvaraj and Chinnavan filed Criminal Appeal No.1075 of 2003. 2. Theshort facts, leading to the conviction, are as follows: (i) P.W.1 Govindasamy is the husband of P.W.10 Perumayee. They belong to Nanjundapuram village. P.W.2 and P.Ws.5 to 7 also belong to the same village. All the accused belong to Moongilpatti village. (ii) On 30.8.2000 at about 6.45 p.m., P.W.1 and his wife P.W.10 were proceeding in a bicycle along Athani-Appakudal Road, toward the village. P.W.1 was driving the bicycle and P.W.10 was the pillion rider. (iii) At that point of time, A-4 Ammanullah and A-6 Chinnavan came on a motorbike in the same road. A-4 was driving the motorbike, in which A-6 was the pillion rider. On seeing that P.W.10, a woman, was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle driven by P.W.1, when the motorbike came near the bicycle, A-6, the pillion rider of the motorbike, tapped on the back of P.W.10 and tore her jacket. Reacting to that, P.W.10 shouted at both A-4 and A-6. (iv) On hearing the noise, P.W.2 Kamaraj, deceased Kumar, P.W.5 Ayyappan and P.W.7 Mayilduraiyan rushed to the scene and attempted to block the motorbike. In spite of that, both the accused sped away on their motorbike. Thereupon, these witnesses enquired P.Ws.1 and 10, who informed them of the misbehaviour of A4 and A6. Immediately, all of them went to Keelvani village to question the conduct of A4 and A6. When they entered into the village at about 8.00 p.m, they saw A3 Brandy Kadai Pommusamy and A5 Selvaraj in front of a Parotta Shop. When the witnesses complained about the act of A4 and A6, there was a quarrel, as a result of which A3 and A5 pushed P.W.2 down, thereby P.W.2 fell down on the ground. (v) Then, the villagers gathered there and asked P.W.1 and other witnesses to return to their village and come on the next day morning, to have a panchayat. (v) Then, the villagers gathered there and asked P.W.1 and other witnesses to return to their village and come on the next day morning, to have a panchayat. Accordingly, they were returning to their village. When they came near Prakash Thottam at about 8.30 p.m, A1 to A6 came there in two separate motorcycles and waylaid the witnesses. A1, A4 and A5 assaulted the deceased Kumar with casuarina sticks. A3 assaulted P.W.2 with casuarina stick on his head. A5 and A6 assaulted P.W.5. When the other witnesses questioned the accused about their act, the witnesses were threatened and abused, by using their caste name. Thereupon, A1 to A6 went away from the place of occurrence. (vi) The injured were immediately taken to the hospital, belonging to P.W.3 Dr.Kariya-manickam at Athani village. He declared the victim Kumar as dead, after examination. (vii) Thereupon, P.W.1 went to Appakudal Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.18, Sub-Inspector of Police, who (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 946 at 950 registered a case at 3.30 a.m. on 31.8.2000 in Crime No.195 of 2000 for various offences, including Section 302 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (viii) On the same day, at about 4.30 a.m., P.W.19, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the investigation; proceeded to the place of occurrence; prepared rough sketch, Ex.P-31 and observation mahazar Ex.P-12 and seized the blood stained tar M.O.14 and sample tar M.O.15. (ix) In the meantime, the injured witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 were treated by doctors P.Ws.4 and 8. They issued Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-6, wound certificates. (x) P.W.19, Deputy Superintendent of Police, came to the hospital, belonging to P.W.3, and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Kumar on 31.8.2000 early in the morning from 7.00 a.m. onwards. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2,5 and 6 and sent the dead body for postmortem. (xi) P.W.8, Doctor, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found six injuries. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to head injury. Ex.P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. (xii) P.W.19 received a complaint at about 2.00 p.m. on 31.8.2000 from A3, who sustained injuries, and registered the same in Crime No.196 of 2000. Then, he arrested A1, A2 and A4 and, on their confession, recovered M.O.16, TVS 50, and M.O.17, Rajdoot Motorcycle. Ex.P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. (xii) P.W.19 received a complaint at about 2.00 p.m. on 31.8.2000 from A3, who sustained injuries, and registered the same in Crime No.196 of 2000. Then, he arrested A1, A2 and A4 and, on their confession, recovered M.O.16, TVS 50, and M.O.17, Rajdoot Motorcycle. He also recovered casuarina sticks from the accused. Thereafter, he arrested A3; examined the other witnesses and obtained community certificates from the Tahsildar for both the accused and the prosecution witnesses. In the meantime, he came to know that A5 and A6 surrendered before the Court. On getting police custody of A5 and A6 and, in pursuance of their confession, he recovered casuarina sticks. (xiii) After completion of investigation, P.W.20, the successor Investigating Officer, filed charge sheet against all the accused. (xiv) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-39 were filed and M.Os.1 to 21 were marked. (xv) Whenthe accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating materials available on record, they simply denied their complicity in the crime. (xvi) On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked. According to D.W.1, there was frequent running of the buses from Prakash Thottam, where the alleged occurrence took place, to various towns. (xvii) The trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offences referred to above. (xviii) Hence, these appeals, by the accused A1 to A6.“ 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction, V.K.Muthusamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A1 to A3 and A5 and A6, and N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for A4, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the case of the prosecution would bristle with several infirmities, especially when there is a grave illegality committed by the Investigating Officer, in not investigating into the counter complaint and also not filing the final report before the Court. Both the counsel would cite (i) ( Venkatanna v. State 1952 MWN CR ); (ii) ( Palanisamy and 2 Others v. State 2005 (1) LW(Crl) 178 ) and (iii) ( Moorthy v. State (2005) MLJ(CRL.)191 ). (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 946 at 951 4. Both the counsel would cite (i) ( Venkatanna v. State 1952 MWN CR ); (ii) ( Palanisamy and 2 Others v. State 2005 (1) LW(Crl) 178 ) and (iii) ( Moorthy v. State (2005) MLJ(CRL.)191 ). (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 946 at 951 4. On the other hand, C.T.Selvam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that there are injured eye witnesses, whose evidence has been sufficiently corroborated by the medical and other evidences; the complaint given by A3 cannot be construed to be a counter complaint, as the occurrence, in which A3 was attacked, related to a different transaction; non-filing of the counter complaint before the Court would not affect the case of the prosecution and, as such, the conviction imposed on the appellants/accused is justified. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 6. At the outset, it would be better to refer to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, with reference to the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer, in respect of the investigation conducted in the case in counter. 7. It is a settled law that when the counter complaint is given by the accused for the injuries sustained by him in the course of same transaction at the hands of the deceased party, the investigating officer has to investigate into both the complaints and file final report, after finding out as to who the aggressor is, by placing all the materials before the Court. When the counter complaint has not been registered and placed before the Court, it will amount to suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence, which would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution and, in that event, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 8. The main plank of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that A3 sustained injuries during the course of same transaction and it is also admitted that A3 has given a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.196 of 2000 and, admittedly, the investigation particulars and the records relating to Crime No.196 of 2000 have not been placed by the investigating agency; as such, the prosecution has not presented the true version and, consequently, all the accused are to be given the benefit of doubt. 9. 9. It is true that A-3 had given a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.196 of 2000. It is also true that P.W.15, doctor, examined A3 and gave treatment for the injuries sustained by him. But, there is no material to show that A3 sustained injuries during the course of same transaction. 10. Admittedly, there were three occurrences. The first occurrence was that A4 and A6 misbehaved with P.W.10, wife of P.W.1, when she was sitting as a pillion rider in the bicycle. The second occurrence was the quarrel ensued in front of the shop of A3, where it was alleged that A3 and A5 pushed P.W.2 down on the ground. The third occurrence took place near Prakash Thottam, where all the witnesses and the deceased were coming back to the village. 11. No prosecution witness would admit that A3 sustained injuries during the course of same transaction, in which the murder took place. On the other hand, A3 sustained injuries at different place and different time, as evidenced from the wound certificate, issued by P.W.15, for which a case has been registered in Crime No.196 of 2000. P.W.20, Investigating Officer, would depose that the said complaint, registered in Crime No.196 of 2000, was referred to as a mistake of fact. 12. A reading of the entire evidence would clearly indicate that the complaint given by A3, which was registered in Crime No.196 of 2000, would not indicate that it is a case in counter. On the other hand, the occurrence in Crime No.196 of 2000 had taken place as a second occurrence, which entirely relates to a different transaction. Therefore, the fact that the documents relating to Crime No.196 of 2000 have not been placed before the Court would (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 946 at 952 not affect the case of the prosecution, since the case of the prosecution wholly relates to the third occurrence, in which P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 and the deceased were attacked. 13. Therefore, the submission with reference to the failure to investigate into the counter complaint, as provided in Police Standing Orders, would not be of any use for the defence, as, in this case, we are only concerned with the materials placed by the prosecution through the witnesses, with reference to the main occurrence, in which the murder took place. 13. Therefore, the submission with reference to the failure to investigate into the counter complaint, as provided in Police Standing Orders, would not be of any use for the defence, as, in this case, we are only concerned with the materials placed by the prosecution through the witnesses, with reference to the main occurrence, in which the murder took place. As such, this submission is liable to be rejected, which is, accordingly, rejected. 14. However, it is to be concluded that the prosecution is unable to prove the main occurrence and the involvement of all the accused in it, for various other reasons. The reasons are as follows: (1) Theoccurrence had taken place on 30.8.2000 at 8.45 p.m near Prakash Thottam. P.W.1, injured, went to Appakudal Police Station and lodged a complaint on 31.8.2000 at about 3.30 a.m. The F.I.R.and the complaint reached the Judicial Magistrate at 9.00 a.m. on 31.8.2000. One of the reasons given by P.W.1 was that he had to walk along the road for nearly 8 kilometres, to reach Appakudal Police Station and there was no conveyance facility. The said explanation cannot be accepted, in view of the evidence of D.W.1, who is residing near Prakash Thottam, to the effect that there was bus facility frequently. When P.W.1 himself stated in the chief-examination that he took the victim on a TVS 50 motorbike to the hospital belonging to P.W.3, there was no reason as to why he did not use his TVS 50 to go to the Police Station. On the other hand, he stated that he had to walk 8 kilometres to go to the Police Station. When P.W.1 was cross-examined in respect of delay, he came forward with an explanation that after the occurrence, he consulted one M.L.A.Periyasamy, who belongs to same caste, and he had a lengthy discussion with him nearly for one hour, regarding the manner in which the complaint was to be prepared and the way in which the case of the prosecution was to be conducted. This admission would indicate that there was a deliberation for long time before lodging the complaint, which, in our view, might have enabled P.W.1, to add as many number of accused as he can. (2) One other important feature, which is to be noticed in this case is the presence of the police at the hospital immediately after the admission of the deceased. (2) One other important feature, which is to be noticed in this case is the presence of the police at the hospital immediately after the admission of the deceased. P.W.3 doctor would categorically admit that even at 10.15 p.m. on 30.8.2000, the police came to his hospital and gave bandobust for the dead body of Kumar. As a matter of fact, in the cross-examination, P.W.3 would further depose that P.W.18 Sub Inspector of Police, along with Inspector of Police, was present at 10.30 p.m. itself, to give protection to the prosecution party and also to the dead body, who belongs to a dalit community. When it is the case of the prosecution through P.W.3 doctor that already police came to the hospital at 10.30 p.m. on 30.8.2000, it is quite ununderstandable to say that the complaint was given by P.W.1 only at 3.30 a.m. on 31.8.2000 and only thereafter the police came to the scene and the hospital. It means, the police officers must have received some other complaint from somebody else and, on receipt of that, they must have come to the hospital at 10.15 p.m itself without any delay. There is no explanation on the part of the police officer as to on whose complaint they came to the hospital on 30.8.2000 night itself and what happened to the complaint. It is also strange to see, when the police officers came to the hospital, they should have received the com-(2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 946 at 953 plaint from any one of the injured persons, who were present at the hospital, and there was no necessity for P.W.18, Sub-Inspector of Police, to receive the complaint from P.W.1 at the Police station at 03.30 a.m. on 31.08.2000. 15. From this, it is clear that some other complaint must have been received earlier and, in pursuance of the same, the police came to the hospital or they must have received some other complaint at the hospital from one of the injured and, in order to give more details and implicate more number of accused, the second complaint was received from P.W.1 and the same was registered. This would indicate that the first complaint, which was received by the police and in pursuance of which they came to the hospital, has not been placed before the Court and, as such, it is a suppression of vital document. 16. This would indicate that the first complaint, which was received by the police and in pursuance of which they came to the hospital, has not been placed before the Court and, as such, it is a suppression of vital document. 16. Under those circumstances, even though there are more number of injured eye witnesses, we are unable to place reliance on them, as, the Court is of the view that, the origin of the occurrence and the vital documents with reference to the first complaint in respect of the main occurrence have been suppressed by the prosecution. Therefore, all the accused/appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 17. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Court are set aside. Fine, if any paid, shall be refunded and the bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled.