Judgment :- The appellants herein, who are accused 1 to 7, stand convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram in S.C.No.330 of 2000, which reads as follows:- "The first accused is convicted under Section 324 IPC and 3(1)(x) of S.C/S.T(P.A.) Act 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 324 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T(P.A) Act and the accused 2 and 4 are convicted under Section 323(3 counts) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months of each count for each accused and the accused 2 and 4 are also convicted under Section 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C/S.T.(P.A) Act 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and the accused 3 and 5 are convicted under Section 324 IPC and 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offence under Section 324 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offence under Section 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C./S.T(P.A) Act 1989 and the 6th accused is convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 325 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C./S.T.(P.A) Act 1989 and 7th accused is convicted under Section 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C/S.T.(P.A.) Act 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 3(1)(x) r/w 8(b) of S.C/S.T(P.A.)Act 1989 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 IPC . All the above sentences are directed to run concurrently." Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the appellants/accused 1 to 7 have preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1 to P.W.9 , all belong to Adi Dravida Community and the accused belong to Vanniyar Community. P.W.1 Elumalai and P.W.2 Ravi and their colleagues used to play cricket in Athanur Tank and in the said place, Prabhu and other boys belonging to Padayatchi Community were in the habit of attending call of nature. On 7. 199 at about 5.00p.m., while the said Prabhu was attending the call of nature in the said place, the colony boys found it and P.W.1 and others came and informed to the colony people. When P.W.1 along with other witnesses went and questioned, Subramani, who is the Junior Paternal uncle of the said Prabhu along with other accused appeared with deadly weapons and that the first accused abused by saying" gugr;fSf;F guXf;fhs XHpfSf;F ,;F vd;dlh ntiy c;f jFjpf;F fphpf;bfl; xU nflh . The 3rd accused cut on the head of P.W.1 with Koduval; 5th accused cut on his right hand and stabbed on his back;4th accused beat him on his left shoulder; 7th accused beat him on his head;2nd and 6th accused also beat him on his back with stick. The other witnesses viz., P.W.2 to P.W.9 were also attacked by the accused. P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint with Ulundurpet Police and P.W.12 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.527 of 1999 under Sections 147,148,324,323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C/S.T Act and prepared First Information Report Ex P13 and sent the injured to the hospital for taking treatment. P.W11, the Civil Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet examined the injured and treated the injured witnesses and issued Accident Registers Ex P3 to Ex P12. He found the following injuries on the person of P.W.1 "1) Lacerated injury 2" x ¼" x1/4" right side frontal area of scalp 2) Lacerated injury 1" x1/4" x1/4" right parietal area of scalp 3) Lacerated injury 2" x1/2" bone depth occipital area of scalp 4) Lacerated injury 1" x1/2" x1/2" right arm 5) Contusion 2" x 1" right back of shoulder. P.W.11 doctor noticed a contusion 2" x1" left arm on the person of P.W.2.The following injuries found on the person of P.W.3 1) Contusion 2" x1" left hand 2) Contusion 1" x ½" left shoulder 3) Abrasion 1" x1/2" left fore-arm P.W.11 doctor observed an abrasion ½" x1/4" right back of chest of P.W.4. He also found a contusion 2" x1" with abrasion 1/2"x ¼" left ankle on the person of P.W.5. P.W.11 doctor noticed following injuries on the person of P.W.6 1) Contusion ½" x ¼" with abrasion ¼" x1/4" right side face. 2) Contusion 1" x1/2" with abrasion ¼" x ¼" left leg . P.W.11 doctor while examined P.W.7 found the following injuries. 1) Contusion 1" x ½" with abrasion ¼" x ¼" left side fore head 2) Abrasion linear right leg ½" P.W.11 the doctor noticed the following injuries on the person of P.W.8 1) Contusion 2" x 1" right side shoulder 2) contusion ½" x ¼" right side scalp P.W.11 Doctor observed the following injuries on the person of P.W.9 1) incised wound ½" x ¼" x1/4" left back of chest 2) Contusion 2" x 1" right arm P.W.11 Doctor noticed the following injuries on the person of Kalai Arasi 1) Contusion 1" x ½" left fore arm 2) Contusion 1" x1/2" let back of chest" P.W.14 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses and drew rough sketch Ex P14. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to P.W.15 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi and obtaining relevant community certificates from the injured and on completing the investigation, P.W.15 has laid the final report on 11. 2000. 3. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating materials available against them, they denied their complicity with the crime. 4. 2nd and 6th accused have filed written statements and contended that on the date of occurrence, it was only the prosecution party which came and attacked the accused. The 5th accused gave a complaint and the same was registered in Cr.No.526 of 1999. 5. 4. 2nd and 6th accused have filed written statements and contended that on the date of occurrence, it was only the prosecution party which came and attacked the accused. The 5th accused gave a complaint and the same was registered in Cr.No.526 of 1999. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though all the accused have been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C/S.T Act, according to the prosecution case, it was only the first accused who is said to have used the community name. The learned counsel further submitted that though the complaint given by the 6th accused was registered, the police has not yet investigated the case and thereby caused prejudice to the accused. No material was placed before the trial Court, though the 6th accused and other accused sustained injuries and the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused and no action has been taken. Even according to the prosecution case, it was only the prosecution party, which came to the place of the accused and therefore they are only the aggressors. The learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution has not produced any relevant material in this case and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused were also injured. 6. The learned Government Advocate(crl) submits that more number of prosecution party are injured and the wound certificate relating to the injury on the accused has not been placed before the trial Court and the accused have also not taken any steps. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants at this stage, submits that the Investigating Officer had admitted in his evidence that while the learned Magistrate remanded the 6th accused, he has noticed the injury. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the records. 9. In this case, P.Ws 1 to 9 have suffered injuries and except the injury sustained by P.W.3 Thennarasu, the fracture in the ring finger, the injuries suffered by others are simple in nature. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place only when the prosecution party went and questioned the first accused and thereafter, the first accused has questioned the prosecution party, there had been quarrel. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place only when the prosecution party went and questioned the first accused and thereafter, the first accused has questioned the prosecution party, there had been quarrel. In the said circumstances, the fact is that the 6th accused had given a complaint, which is also registered in Cr.No. 527 of 1999 as per the evidence of Sub Inspector P.W.12. But the Investigating Officer has not stated that whether the case in Crime No.527 of 1999 was investigated and whether any witnesses were examined and whether the case was referred to or not. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer stated that he did not know anything about it. There is a utter failure on the part of the prosecution to place material with regard to the counter case given by the accused. The 6th accused has also filed written statement wherein it has been stated that the 6th accused got injured and also given a complaint to the police station. Again, the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused. In the absence of material being placed with regard to the case registered against the prosecution party, the doubt arises with regard to the origin of the occurrence and it is not possible to decide who is the aggressor. In the said circumstances, the observation of the trial Court that," the contention that the colony people entered into village and attacked the accused does not gain acceptance, since prosecution witnesses over numbered accused with reference to the injured," does not seem to be correct. As the prosecution failed to place all the materials before the Court, it is held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused is hereby set aside. If any fine amount paid by the accused, shall be refunded to them.