Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.51/1995 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin are the appellants. They challenge the judgment of the Sessions Judge, dated 13.07.1998, convicting and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. Theprosecution case is as follows: (a) Deceased No.1 (D-1) Savarimuthu and Deceased No.2 (D-2) Anthoniammal are brother and sister. P.W.1 Chellappa and P.W.2 Kennedy are the sons of D-2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 (A-1 & A-2) are brothers. The family of A-1 approached the family of the deceased for alliance between A-1 and Amutha, the sister of P.Ws.1 and 2. The parents of P.W.1 and his uncle D-1 refused to agree to the alliance on the ground that the family of the accused is a drunkard family. This incident happened one year before the date of occurrence. The accused were not on talking terms with D-1. (b) On 25.08.1992 at about 7.00 p.m., A-1 went to the house of P.W.2 with a knife when P.W.1 was not at home. A-1 told P.W.3 Anthonijeya, the wife of P.W.2, that "you have refused to the alliance and you are also abusing our family." Thereafter, at 7.30 p.m., when P.W.1, his mother D-2, his uncle D-1 and his wife Thommai were in the house, P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the house of P.W.1 and informed them about the threat made by A-1 with knife. D-1 and D-2 said that in the morning they would discuss the matter with the village elders. At that time, A-1 and A-2 came with a knife in their hands. Immediately D-1 asked them the reason why they have entered into the house. A-1 said that it was because D-1 did not agree to the alliance and because A-1s family was abused, for which D1 alone was the cause, and stabbed D-1 in the abdomen on the right side. The intestines of D-1 fell out. When D-2 shouted that her brother had been stabbed, A-2 stabbed D-2 with a knife under her left armpit. P.W.2 went near D-2 shouting that his mother had been stabbed. At that moment, A-1 attempted to stab P.W.2. P.W.2 bent down and the stab landed above the right ear of A-2 and injured him. P.W.1 went near D-1. When D-2 shouted that her brother had been stabbed, A-2 stabbed D-2 with a knife under her left armpit. P.W.2 went near D-2 shouting that his mother had been stabbed. At that moment, A-1 attempted to stab P.W.2. P.W.2 bent down and the stab landed above the right ear of A-2 and injured him. P.W.1 went near D-1. A-1 struck him with the knife and P.W.1s little finger on the right hand was injured. Both the accused ran away with their respective knives towards the east. At that time, a van came that way and P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.10 went in the van taking D-1 and D-2 to the Tuticorin Government Hospital. (c) P.W.4, the duty doctor in the Government Hospital Tuticorin, examined D-1, who was brought by P.W.10 Savarianandam, at 00.05 a.m. on 26.08.1992. D-1 informed P.W.4 that at 7.30 p.m. on 25.08.1992 a known person stabbed him. As his condition was critical, P.W.4 admitted D-1 and Ex.P-1 is the Accident Register. On the same day at 00.15 a.m., P.W.4 examined D-2. She was accompanied by P.W.10. She informed P.W.4 that a known person had stabbed her at 7.30 p.m. on 25.08.1992. P.W.4 was not able to assess the depth of injury and since her condition was also critical, she was admitted in the hospital. Ex.P-2 is the Accident Register with regard to D-2. On the same day at 00.25 a.m. P.W.4 examined P.W.1, who said that a known person had stabbed him at 7.30 p.m. on 25.08.1992. There was an abrasion on his right little finger. Ex.P-3 is the Accident Register with regard to P.W.1. On the same day at 3.45 a.m., P.W.4 admitted A-2 in the hospital. A2 informed P.W.4 that he was injured by a sword. P.W.4 found on him one incised wound and also a cut injury. The injured complained of pain in the left hand. P.W.4 admitted him as an inpatient and Ex.P-4 is the Accident Register with regard to A-2. (d) P.W.12, the Head Constable in Tuticorin South Police Station, received Ex.P-20 intimation from the Tuticorin Government Hospital Outpost Police Station on 26.08.1992 at about 1.00 a.m. He went to the hospital and recorded the statement given by D-2 between 1.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. Ex.P-16 is the statement given by D-2. P.W.10 has attested it. P.W.12 returned to the police station and gave intimation to Ottapidaram Police Station through wireless. P.W.10 has attested it. P.W.12 returned to the police station and gave intimation to Ottapidaram Police Station through wireless. On the same day, P.W.12 also received Ex.P-21 intimation from the hospital about the admission of A-2 in the hospital. He again went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-22 statement given by A-2 between 4.00 a.m. and 4.45 a.m. After returning to Police Station, he gave intimation about the statement of A-2 also to Ottapidaram Police Station. At 5.45 a.m., the Sub-Inspector attached to Ottapidram Police Station came to Tuticorin and obtained both Exs.P-16 and P-22. Thereafter Ex.P-5 death intimation stating that D-1 died at 7.30 a.m. was received in the police station. Ex.P-5 intimation was sent by one Dr.Sukumar, who has since gone abroad, P.W.4 has identified Dr.Sukumars signature. Ex.P-5 death intimation was also received by Ottapidaram police. (e) P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Ottapidaram Police Station and in-charge Sub-Inspector of Puthiyamputhur Police Station, on receipt of intimation from Tuticorin South Police Station through wireless, went to the said Police Station and obtained Exs.P-16 and P-22 from P.W.12 and returned to Puthiyamputhur Police Station at 6.45 a.m. Based on Ex.P-16 statement of D-2, P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.69/1992 under Section 307 IPC and prepared Ex.P-24 Express FIR. He sent Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-24 FIR to the Magistrate Court through P.W.11 Constable. Based on Ex.P-22 statement of A-2, P.W.14 also registered a case in Crime No.70/1992 under Section 324 IPC and FIR in that case is Ex.P-25 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court. Copies of Exs.P-24 and P-25 were sent to the Inspector of Police. (f) P.W.16, Inspector of Puthiyamputhur Police Station, received copy of Ex.P-24 FIR and also the death intimation regarding D-1 and altered the offence into one under Section 302 IPC. Altered FIR is Ex.P-31. He forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, he went to Tuticorin Government Hospital at 9.15 a.m. and conducted inquest on the dead body of D-1 in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-32 inquest report. During inquest, he enquired P.Ws.1 to 3 and Thommai and recorded their statements. He sent the body for postmortem through P.W.13 Constable, with a requisition. (g) P.W.6, Assistant Civil Surgeon of Tuticorin Government Hospital, on receipt of the dead body of D-1, along with Ex.P-7 requisition, conducted postmortem at 3.00 p.m. on 26.08.1992. During inquest, he enquired P.Ws.1 to 3 and Thommai and recorded their statements. He sent the body for postmortem through P.W.13 Constable, with a requisition. (g) P.W.6, Assistant Civil Surgeon of Tuticorin Government Hospital, on receipt of the dead body of D-1, along with Ex.P-7 requisition, conducted postmortem at 3.00 p.m. on 26.08.1992. Ex.P-8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. He was of the opinion that the deceased (D-1) would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs liver and right kidney. (h) P.W.16, in continuation of his investigation, at 1.00 p.m. went to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.10 and another, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-17 and rough sketch Ex.P-33. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth, M.Os.2 and 3 respectively, under Ex.P-18 mahazar. Thereafter he examined P.W.4, Dr.Sukumaran, P.Ws.6, 11, 12 and 14 and recorded their statements. On the same day, he also took up the investigation in Crime No.70/92 based on Ex.P-22 complaint given by A-2. He examined witnesses and concluded from the statements obtained in Crime No.69/1992 that the injuries sustained by A-2 were self-inflicted injuries and referred the case as "mistake of fact" and sent the referred report to the Magistrate. On the same day, while recording the statement from D-2, he recovered the bloodstained sari and blouse, M.Os.4 and 5, worn by D-2. (i) P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthyamputhur Police Station, received intimation from Tuticorin Government Hospital that D-2 died at 4.00 a.m. on 03.09.1992 and based on which he prepared a report Ex.P-27 and sent the same to Court as well as to higher officials. (j) Further investigation was conducted by P.W.17. P.W.17, Inspector of Police, on receipt of intimation about the death of D-2 proceeded to Government Hospital, Tuticorin and conducted inquest on the dead body of D-2 in the presence of panchayats and witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and others and prepared Ex.p-34 inquest report. He sent the dead body of D-2 for postmortem with Ex.P-9 requisition. (k) P.W.7 Medical Officer at Tuticorin Government Hospital received Ex.P-9 requisition for conducting postmortem on the body of D-2 and conducted postmortem on 03.09.1992 at 2.00 p.m. Ex.P10 is the postmortem certificate. She was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of septic shock due to pyopnenmethorax following stab injury left side of chest wall. Her opinion is Ex.P-11. She was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of septic shock due to pyopnenmethorax following stab injury left side of chest wall. Her opinion is Ex.P-11. (l) P.W.17, in continuation of his investigation, arrested A-2 on 24.09.1992 at 4.00 p.m. near the Tuticorin 3rd Railway Gate Bus-stop in the presence of witnesses. At that time, A-2 volunteered to give a confession statement, admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-35. In pursuance of Ex.P-35, at 6.00 p.m., M.O.1 knife was recovered under Ex.P-36 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. A-1 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No.4, Tirunelveli on 27.08.1992. P.W.17 sent M.Os.2 to 6 to the court with a requisition to subject them for chemical analysis. Ex.P-37 is the requisition given by him and Ex.P-38 is the letter of the Court. Exs.P-39 and P-40 are Chemical Examiner and Serologist reports, respectively. P.W.17 examined Doctors P.Ws.5 and 7 and P.15 Sub-Inspector of Police and recorded their statements. Since he was transferred, further investigation was conducted by one Rajaram, who has since expired and who filed the final report under Section 302 IPC against the accused on 30.10.1993. 3. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have denied their guilt and all the attendent circumstances. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17, Marked Exs.P-1 to P-40 and produced M.Os.1 to 6. 5.(a).The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and therefore their case cannot be accepted. Both in Exs.P-16 and P-22, the statements recorded from D-2 and A-2, the motive for the strained feelings between the two families is identical, which relates to the proposal for alliance between A-1 and Amutha, the daughter of D-2. According to Ex.P-16, it is because the family of the deceased refused to agree to the alliance on the ground that the accused family is a drunkard family, there was enmity between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased. 5.(b). According to both Exs.P-16 and P-22, there was an incident at 7.00 p.m. on 25.08.1992 and based on them two cases came to be registered in Crime Nos.69/1992 and 70/1992. 5.(b). According to both Exs.P-16 and P-22, there was an incident at 7.00 p.m. on 25.08.1992 and based on them two cases came to be registered in Crime Nos.69/1992 and 70/1992. Learned senior counsel submitted that when this is the case, the investigation officer should have given reasons why he has chosen to prefer the case of the prosecution and not the case of the accused. He has also not filed the final report in the case registered on the complaint of A-2. the non-filing of the referred report in that case also raises a doubt as to the prosecution case. In particular, the learned senior counsel pointed out the evidence of P.W.16, the investigation officer, where he has stated that he had not recorded the statement of the doctor who had treated A-2 and he had not obtained copy of the Accident Register before filing referral report in Crime No.70/1992. P.W.16 has admitted that statements were recorded from the wife of A-2 and his sister Anthomiammal. These statements and other records relating to Crime No.70/1992 were forwarded to the court but they were not now found in the file. He has also admitted that he did not arrest P.W.2 with regard to Crime No.70/1992 nor had he recovered any weapon. 5.(c).The learned senior counsel pointed out that P.W.10 is alleged to have played an important role in the sense that he accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2 and D-1 and D-2 in the van on the way to the hospital and his name is found in Exs.P-1 and P-2, the Accident Registers of D-1 and D-2, but P.W.16 the investigation officer had not recorded any statement from him. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that it is very curious that though P.Ws.1 and 2 had accompanied their mother and uncle, they had not attested in Ex.P-16 statement given by D-2, which was recorded by P.W.12 Constable and it was only P.W.10 who had attested it. 5.(d).Learned senior counsel pointed out that the only weapon that has been produced before the court, as a material object, is the knife and and the wounds found on A-2 could not have been caused by a knife. 5.(d).Learned senior counsel pointed out that the only weapon that has been produced before the court, as a material object, is the knife and and the wounds found on A-2 could not have been caused by a knife. In Ex.P-22, the statement recorded from A-2, there is clear reference to a sword and in those circumstances the case propounded by P.W.16 that it was a self-inflicted one, which is nobodys case, cannot be accepted since M.O.1 knife could not have caused those injuries. 5.(e).The learned senior counsel also submitted that as regards the scene of occurrence, there is discrepancy between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P-16. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, accused did not enter the house to attack the deceased and they stabbed the deceased only outside. P.W.16 Investigation Officer has recovered M.Os.2 and 3 from the road and it is the road which is shown as the scene of occurrence in the rough sketch Ex.P-33. On the other hand, Ex.P-16 would show that when D-2 and her brother D-1, P.W.1 and Thommai, the wife of D-1, were inside the house, A-1 and A-2 came and attacked. 5.(f).Learned senior counsel also submitted that while according to P.W.1, A-1 had raised a quarrel in P.W.2s house at about 7.00 p.m. before the time of occurrence at 7.30 p.m., Ex.P-22 would show that at 7.00 p.m. when A-2 was going towards the house where P.W.2 was living, P.W.3, the wife of P.W.2, abused him and on hearing that A-1 has abused P.W.2 and returned home and thereafter D1 and D-2 came to the house of A-1 and there was a wordy quarrel at which time P.W.2 took the weapon in his hand and cut A-2 on his head and he inflicted one more injury. Learned senior counsel submitted that the total suppression of the statements recorded and investigation conducted in Crime No.70/1992 would show that the prosecution has not come out with the actual genesis of the case. 5.(g).Learned senior counsel also submitted that there was unexplained delay in forwarding the express FIR to the Court. According to P.W.11, express FIR was received by him at 7.30 a.m. on 26.08.1992 and he handed it over in the court at 1.00 p.m. In the cross-examination of P.W.11, the FIR constable, it is admitted that there is bus facility for every half-an-hour from Puthiyamputhur Police Station to Tuticorin. According to P.W.11, express FIR was received by him at 7.30 a.m. on 26.08.1992 and he handed it over in the court at 1.00 p.m. In the cross-examination of P.W.11, the FIR constable, it is admitted that there is bus facility for every half-an-hour from Puthiyamputhur Police Station to Tuticorin. He has denied the suggestion that the express FIR was handed over to him only at 12.00 p.m. on 26.08.1992. 5.(h).Learned senior counsel also pointed out that while in Ex.P-16 there is reference to only one injury on A-2 which happened because P.W.2 bent down when A-1 tried to stab him with knife, in Ex.P-4 wound certificate issued to A-2 the Doctor, who treated him, has noted the following three injuries. "1. An incised wound 12 cms x 2 cms exposing underlying bone in right temporal region. 2. An incised wound 15 cms x 2 cms exposing underlying bone just above injury No.1. 3. Complains pain in left upper limb." According to the doctor, injury Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. These injuries could not have been inflicted on A-2 either in the manner as stated in Ex.P-16 or by P.Ws.1 and 2. 5.(i).Learned senior counsel also submitted that no doctor has certified the mental condition of D-2 when Ex.P-16 was recorded. It is the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, that when D-2 was admitted she was in a critical condition and yet though there were 10 days between the date of death of D-2 and the date on which D-2 was admitted, there was no attempt made to record her dying declaration. 5.(i).Learned senior counsel referred to the following decisions. (1) In 1989 L.W. Crl. 415 (Krishnamoorthi v. State). (2) 2005 M.L.J.(Crl.) 191 - Moorthy and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu. (3) 1976 SCC (cri) 671 - (Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In particular, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though Ex.P-22 is subsequent to Ex.P-16, there is no mentioning in Ex.P-22 of the incident that had obviously happened between the two accused and the two deceased. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In particular, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though Ex.P-22 is subsequent to Ex.P-16, there is no mentioning in Ex.P-22 of the incident that had obviously happened between the two accused and the two deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the investigation officer had fairly stated in his evidence that he enquired the witnesses Michael (A-2), Thasans wife Anthoniammal, Kattiyammal and Thommai in Crime No.70/1992 and it is only because from the investigation conducted in respect of Crime No.69/1992, he closed the case in Crime No.70/1992 on the ground of "mistake of fact" and had in fact communicated the referred report to the Magistrate. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that really there was no discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence. In Ex.P-16, D-2 has merely stated that they were all at home when A-1 and A-2 made the attack. There were no words in Ex.P-16 to indicate that the accused entered the house. Therefore, according to Ex.P-33 rough sketch, the scene of occurrence is only just outside the house of the deceased. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the injury on A-2 is clearly explained by P.W.4 the Doctor and by other witnesses. 7. We now have to see whether the prosecution has come out with a genuine case. The basic reason as to why the events that culminated in the death of A-1 and A-2, both as per Ex.P-16 and P22, is the same. There appears to have been some misunderstanding between the two families, because the family of the deceased refused to give Amutha, the daughter of D-2, in marriage to A-1. This is the basis for the events that took place subsequently. 8. According to the prosecution, the accused came to the house of the deceased and inflicted fatal injuries on D-1 and D-2 and also injured P.W.1. Whereas, according to the version in Ex.P-22 complaint given by A-2, it is P.W.3, who first abused A-1 and there appears to have been some wordy exchange and D-1 and D-2 came to the house of A-2, at which point of time P.W.2 with a dagger inflicted injury on A-2. Therefore, there is variation about the manner in which the injuries were inflicted on A-2. Therefore, there is variation about the manner in which the injuries were inflicted on A-2. According to the prosecution A-1 struck with a knife on P.W.2 who bent and A2 was injured consequently. The injuries inflicted on A-2 have already been referred to. It is impossible to accept that an injury of that length and width could have been caused by a knife. The case propounded by P.W.16, the investigation officer, that it was a self-inflicted injury is no ones case. An injury which has resulted in the skull being exposed could hardly have been self-inflicted. 9. Though P.W.16 has stated that he has forwarded the referred report to the Magistrate Court, he has admitted in his evidence that the statements recorded by him in Crime No.70/1992 are not in the court file. He also admitted in his evidence that he has not examined the doctors, who gave treatment to A-2, in Crime No.70/1992 and he has not obtained radiology report. He has also stated that the doctors said that the injuries found on A-2 are simple injuries. Whereas, it is clear from Ex.P-4 wound certificate issued to A-2 that injury Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. Therefore the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case and the events that led to the death of D-1 and D-2. 10. It is hardly relevant whether A-2s version in Ex.P-22 is satisfactory, considering the injuries inflicted on D-1 and D-2 which resulted in their death. The prosecution cannot hope to succeed on the weaknesses of the defence case. In this regard, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra) is clear and it reads thus: "It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to tend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to tend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court." 11. The decisions cited on the side of the appellants also support their case. In 1989 L.W. Crl. 415 (Krishnamoorthi v. State), the complaint given by the accused to the police was not placed on record before the court and no attempt was made by the investigating agency to refer to the said complaint that was registered, given a crime number, investigated and referred as "a mistake of fact". The Division Bench held that the investigation was perfunctory and the investigating agency had not chosen to investigate the case in all its aspects, in the sense of examining and verifying the veracity of both the versions. The Division Bench also has referred to the procedure to be followed as per Order 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders, which deals with charge sheets in cases and counter cases. "588-A.Charge Sheets in cases and counter cases.--In a complaint and counter complaint, obviously arising out of the same transaction, the investigation 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 basis 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 witnesses who support it and give no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the other 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 witnesses 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 chose 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-complaint, as the case may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in Form 96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the police." Since the true version was not placed forward by the prosecution, the High Court acquitted the appellant. 11. Similarly, in 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 191 (Moorthy vs. State), there was a case and counter case. In that case also, referred report was not filed and on account of suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence by the prosecution and the true version has not been presented before the Court, the Division Bench gave the appellants the benefit of doubt setting aside the conviction. The Division Bench held as follows: "22. The above testimony is highly artificial and the prosecution has only made a vain attempt to show that Basker has sustained injuries in a different transaction. Whatever it may be, the settled law is that when the counter complaint is given by the accused for the injuries sustained by him in the course of the same transaction at the hands of the deceased party, the Investigation Officer has to investigate both the complaints and then only file final report and place all the materials before the Court. 23. 23. In the present case, the Investigation Officers, namely, P.W.17 Inspector Palanivel and P.W.18 Inspector Manavalan have only stated that they conducted investigation in the counter case and referred the same as mistake of fact and they have not marked the counter complaint and the referred report in this case. In short, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus, not presented the true version and in those circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on them are liable to be set aside." 12. In 1976 SACC (cri) 671 - (Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar), the Apex Court has held as under: "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." 13. The above three decisions apply squarely to the present case. In the present case also there is a case and counter case and P.W.16 has suppressed the Crime No.70/92 without explaining why he has chosen the version stated in Ex.P-16 rather than that of the accused version in Ex.P-22. 14. There is also no satisfactory explanation for the injuries sustained by A-2. We have to accept the defence case that the injuries sustained by A-2 could not have been inflicted by a knife nor it could have been inflicted in the manner spoken to in Ex.P-16. On the other hand, ex.P-22 speaks about a sword wielded by P.W.2, which, inflicted the grievous injuries on A-2. The prosecution version that the injury was inflicted only with a knife and in the manner which has already been referred to above, is unacceptable. If that is so, the injuries sustained by A-2 remains unexplained. In this context, we may refer to 1976 SCS (Cri) 671 (Lakshmi singh and others vs. State of Bihar). The prosecution version that the injury was inflicted only with a knife and in the manner which has already been referred to above, is unacceptable. If that is so, the injuries sustained by A-2 remains unexplained. In this context, we may refer to 1976 SCS (Cri) 671 (Lakshmi singh and others vs. State of Bihar). There the Apex Court held that where the injuries on the accused are unexplained, then the evidence of the prosecution is untrue and it would probabilise the plea of the appellants. The following portion of the judgment is relevant. "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 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. 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." 15. Therefore, the following grave infirmities are found by us in the case of the prosecution. (a) Suppression of genesis and origin of the occurrence. (b) Failure tomark the referred report in Crime No.70/1992. (c) Non-explanation of the injuries on A-2. Therefore, the version of the prosecution cannot be the true version and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.51 of 1995 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand terminated.