Judgment :- (These appeals are filed against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.410/2002 dated 23.12.2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I) Chengalpattu.) A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. These appeals have been preferred against the Judgment in S.C.No.410/2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,Chengalpattu. A1, A3 and A4 in S.C.No.410 of 2002 have preferred Crl.A.No.53 of 2004 and A2 in S.C.No.410 of 2002 has preferred Crl.A.No.108 of 2004. 2. The short facts of the case sans irrelevant particulars, for deciding these appeals are as follows: The deceased Vijayakumar was running a tea stall at Mudichur Road. Latha is the wife of the deceased. A2, Ravindran is the brother-in-law of the deceased. There was a dispute between the deceased and his wife, who is said to have taken Rs.40,000/- from the said Tea Stall and went to her parents house. On 10.8.2000 at 11.00p.m., A1 to A4 went to paste the posters in the shop of the deceased which was objected to by the deceased. A1 and A2 attacked the deceased with wooden log on his head; A3 and A4 beat the deceased with hands on his chest. The deceased took the knife from his shop to attack the accused, while attempted to snatch the knife from the deceased, A1 had sustained injuries on his hands and A3 had also sustained injuries on his neck. Due to the assault made by A1 to A4, the said Vijayakumar died instantaneously and the accused took the corpse and placed the same on the nearby mechanic shed and ran away. P.W.1, an ocular witness to the occurrence went and saw the deceased lying dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred a complaint with P.W.11, the Inspector of Police on 11.8.2000 at 5.30a.m.,. P.W.11 had registered a case in Crime No.716/2000 under Section 302 IPC. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police registered a case and took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence at 7.30p.m., and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar, Ex P18 rough sketch and recovered M.Os 2 to 5 from the place of occurrence under Ex P3 mahazar, P.W.11 Inspector of Police conducted inquest between 8.10 a.m., and 11.00 a.m., on the body of the deceased. ExP19 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he had sent the dead body for post mortem. ExP19 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he had sent the dead body for post mortem. P.W.6 is the doctor who had conducted postmortem on 11.8.2000 at3.30p.m., on the corpse of Vijayakumar and Ex P6 is the post mortem report wherein the Doctor has opined that the deceased appear to have died due to the injury in the vital organ viz., the heart. On 11.8.2000, P.W.11 the Inspector of Police examined witnesses and recorded their statements . On 11.8.2000 at 6.00p.m.,, P.W.11 arrested A1 to A4 and on the confession of A2, P.W.11 seized M.O.1 wooden log and on the confession of A1, seized another wooden log. Thereafter, he had sent material objects for chemical analysis. On 11.8.2000 ,an identification parade was conducted by P.W.7, the then Judicial Magistrate No.1,Poonamallee. Ex P12 is the identification parade report. On 11.8.2000, at 9.35 p.m., P.W.6 the doctor had examined A1 and A3 and issued Exs P8 and P7 wound certificates respectively. After completing the formalities P.W.11 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 19.8.2000. 3. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in PRC No. 5 of 2001 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. After committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC against the accused and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined . Exs P1 to P23, M.Os 1 to 9 were marked. 5. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have denied their complicity with the crime. A1 would specifically state that at the time of occurrence, the accused made an attempt to past the posters in connection with the temple festival in front of the tea shop run by the deceased Vijayakumar, which was objected to by the deceased Vijayakumar and when he caught hold of his shirt , he asked him to take away his hands. Thereupon Vijayakumar went inside the tea shop and brought a knife and stabbed on the left flank and when he resisted the attack, Vijayakumar caused injuries with a knife on the left hand and fingers and also he had caused injury on the left side of the ear. A3 would also state in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Vijayakumar had caused incised injury on his nape with a knife. After going through the available oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu, had found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced each of the accused to undergo life imprisonment and also slapped each of the accused a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the sentence, A1, A3 and A4 have preferred Crl.A.No.53 of 2004 and A2 has preferred Crl.A.No.108 of 2004. 6. The point for determination in these appeals is whether the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 to A4 in S.C.No.410 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.1) Chengalpattu are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeals?. 7. We have heard Mr. I.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. We have carefully considered their submissions. 8. The Point: After giving the due deliberations to the submissions of the counsel appearing for the accused in both the appeals and also learned Government Advocate , we are of the considered view that the case of the prosecution suffers from the following infirmities which warrants an interference with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.1) Chengalpattu. (i) According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 10.8.2000 at 11.30p.m., Ex P1 complaint was preferred by P.W.1, an employee under the deceased Vijayakumar in the tea shop only on 11.8.2000 at 5.30a.m., As per Ex P17, First Information Report, the distance between the place of occurrence and Tambaram Police Station is only 2 k.m., P.W.11, the Investigation Officer in the cross examination would admit that the Express First Information Report in this case has reached the Magistrate's Court only at 5.00p.m., on 11.8.2000. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for the above said inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for the above said inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. P.W.11 in the cross examination would depose to the fact that he is not aware where the said complaint was written by P.W.1 himself or P.W.1 has signed in the complaint which was reduced to writing by some other person. Per contra, P.W.1 in the chief examination would depose to the fact that the occurrence took place on 10.8.2000 at 11.30 p.m.,. But he informed the incident to the near by shop keeper who had written the complaint ExP1 in which he has signed and presented the same before P.W.11. (ii) P.W.1 the ocular witness while describing about the manner of the occurrence has stated that A1 and A3 have assaulted Vijayakumar with wooden sticks on his head and A2 and A4 have assaulted Vijayakumar with hands on the chest. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 was examined on the side of the prosecution. P.W.2 in the chief examination has stated that at the time of occurrence A1 and A2 have assaulted Vijayakumar with wooden sticks, but he has categorically stated in the chief examination itself that P.W.1 alone had informed him that A1 and A2 beat Vijayakumar. So the evidence of P.W.2 is hear say evidence which is in admissible. P.W.2 has not implicated A3 and A4 in the said occurrence. In the cross examination , in a crystal clear terms, he had admitted that he has not seen the accused assaulting Vijayakumar with wooden sticks. P.W.2 has also not corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 has also not corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. So the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the sole evidence of P.W.1. (jii) The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed in entirety because there are discrepancies to the evidence given by P.W.1 in the Court and in the statement given in Ex P1 complaint. In Ex P1 complaint, P.W.1 has stated that A1 had assaulted Vijayakumar with wooden sticks on the head and A3 had assaulted Vijayakumar with wooden sticks not only on the head but also on the chest and all over the body whereas in the Court P.W.1 deposed that A1 and A3 have assaulted Vijayakumar only on the head and A2 and A4 alone have assaulted the deceased Vijayakumar on the chest. The evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by medical evidence. The Doctor who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of Vijayakumar was examined as P.W.6 . P.W.6, the doctor has opined that the deceased appears to have died only due to the injury, he had sustained in the heart. E xP6 is the postmortem report. P.W.1 has not stated that A1 and A3 had assaulted with wooden stick on the chest of Vijayakumar. So it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that for the injury caused in the heart of the deceased, A1 and A3 are not responsible because according to P.W.1, A1 and A3 have assaulted with wooden stick on the head of the deceased Vijayakumar. The said discrepancy in the evidence of P.W1 and the statement in ExP1 complaint is also not explained by the prosecution. P.W1's evidence is not also corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.6, Doctor who had issued Ex P6 Post mortem report. Further there is no evidence on record to show as to how he had sustained fracture in the sternum. (iv) The most important point to be noted in this case is that in the same occurrence A1 and A3 have sustained injuries. P.W.5 is the doctor who had examined A1 and A3 for the injuries, they have sustained at the occurrence on 10.8.2000 at 11.30p.m., P.W.5 has deposed that he could see a cut injury below the right thumb of A1 and also another cut injury between the right middle finger and the index finger and also another cut injury on the left ear and according to P.W.5 the Doctor , A3 Suresh has also sustained a cut injury on the nape. P.W.6 the doctor who had conducted post mortem on the corpse of Vijayakumar has also examined A1 and A3 on 11.8.2000 at 9.25 p.m., and issued Exs P8 and P7 respectively. IN Ex P7 which is relating to A3, there are four injuries mentioned and Ex P8 relating to A1 there are six injuries mentioned. The prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused viz., A1 and A3 in the same occurrence. If the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence is fatal to the prosecution as laid down in AIR 1976 SC 2263 (Lakshmi Singh and others Etc., Vs. State of Bihar). The prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused viz., A1 and A3 in the same occurrence. If the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence is fatal to the prosecution as laid down in AIR 1976 SC 2263 (Lakshmi Singh and others Etc., Vs. State of Bihar). The relevant observation in the above said dictum by the Honourable Apex Court runs as follows:- "It is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. This mater was argued before the High Court and we are constrained to observe that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of the Court in Mohar Rai Vs. State of Bihar, ( 1968 (3) SCR 525 = AIR 1968 SC 1281 ) tried to brush it aside on most untenable grounds. The question whether the Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is wholly irrelevant to the issue particularly when the very Doctor who examined one of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the appellant Dasrath Singh also. In the case referred to above, this Court clearly observed as follows: "The trial Court as well as the High Court wholly ignored the significance of the injuries found on the appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as may as 13 injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the evidence of P.W.15 that he noticed injuries on the person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised. Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries. ....... In our Judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries. ....... In our Judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants." This court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow:(1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants" .................................... .............................................................. In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. ............................................................... .................................................................... .... It seems to us 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 circumstances 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 or, the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." The above fact of non explanation of the injuries on the accused will go to show that the prosecution has not presented the true version of the case. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3 will clearly go to show that the occurrence would not have been occurred as alleged by the prosecution. It is not explained by the prosecution why, the complaint was not taken from A1, and A3 regarding the injuries, they have sustained at the hands of the deceased at the place of occurrence. The prosecution after registering both the complaints should have investigated both the complaints and proceeded against the aggressors who are responsible for the occurrence. But the investigating agency has failed to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 588 A of Police Standing Order. 9. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, which will inure to the benefit of doubt to the accused. The point is answered accordingly. 10. In the result, these appeals are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the trial Court. The appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amounts, if paid, shall be refunded to the accused.