Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This judgment shall govern Criminal Appeal Nos.734, 772 and 773 of 2005. 2. The first one has arisen from the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.342 of 2002, whereby the appellants herein and A-4 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: 3. The later two appeals have arisen on the private complaints, which were taken by the Sessions Court in S.C.Nos.533, 534 and 535 of 2003. In S.C.No.533 of 2003, the accused therein/the appellants in Crl.A.No.772 of 2005 along with other stood charged under Sections 341 and 307 r/w S.34 IPC and in S.C.No.534 of 2003, the accused therein/the appellants in Crl.A.No.773 of 2005 along with others stood charged under Sections 148, 147, 341 and 307 r/w S.34 IPC and on trial, in S.C.No.533 of 2003, A-1 to A-3 were found not guilty under Sections 341 and 307 r/w S.34 IPC, but A-1 and A-2 were found guilty under Section 324 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and in S.C.No.534 of 2003, A-2 was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo 2 months S.I. and A-3 was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. 4. The factual events, which led the prosecution to come with a case in S.C.No.342 of 2002 can be stated as follows: a) P.W.1 is the son and P.W.4 is the daughter of the first deceased Chockalingam and the second deceased Visalakshi. P.Ws.2 and 3 are also their close relatives. The accused were also residing nearby to the house of the deceased at the village called Aminjikarai within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. On 7. 2001, a cattle of the complainants party entered into the field of the first accused, which was detained by him. One Mohan, the brother of P.W.2, demanded for the return of the cattle, to which the first accused was not amenable, but assaulted the said Mohan. A complaint was given to the respondent police and he was sent to the hospital for treatment. b) On the next day, namely on 7. One Mohan, the brother of P.W.2, demanded for the return of the cattle, to which the first accused was not amenable, but assaulted the said Mohan. A complaint was given to the respondent police and he was sent to the hospital for treatment. b) On the next day, namely on 7. 2001, at about 7.30 a.m., the first deceased went to the house of the first accused, questioned his conduct and also asked for the return of the cattle, but the first accused gave the same reply. The first deceased came back to his house. Within a short while, the first accused accompanied by the accused Nos.2 to 4, came to the house of the deceased, called him out. To start with, it was the first accused who attacked the first deceased with M.O.1 Palaikathi. On seeing this, the second deceased, the wife of the first deceased, came out and intervened. She was also attacked by the first accused on her face, right hand and on her back. P.Ws.1 and 2 tried to prevent the act of the accused, but the first accused assaulted P.W.1 on his left hand, while the second accused also assaulted P.W.1 on his left hand. The third accused assaulted P.W.1 with casuarina stick on his left shoulder. The first accused assaulted P.W.2 with M.O.1 Palaikathi and the second accused also attacked P.W.2 with M.O.2 Palaikathi on his left leg. The fourth accused attacked P.W.2 with M.O.4, casuarina stick. The same was witnessed by P.W.3 and also P.W.4, the child witness. The accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. c) Both the deceased were taken to the hospital, but on the way the first deceased died and the second deceased also died. P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu. P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, on getting information, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, on the strength of which, he registered a case in Crime No.509 of 2001 under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. Ex.P.17, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. d) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.18, the rough sketch. Ex.P.17, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. d) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.18, the rough sketch. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar. He went to the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu and conducted inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Exs.P.19 and 20, the inquest reports of Chockalingam and Visalatchi respectively. The dead bodies were sent for the purpose of post-mortem along with the requisition. e) P.W.9, the Doctor attached to the Chengalpattu Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Chockalingam and has issued Ex.P.14, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of injury to the thoracic abdominal wall. He also conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Visalakshi and has issued Ex.P.15, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries. f) The further investigation was on. P.W.12 arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 on 7. 2001 and remanded them to judicial custody. On 7. 2001, the fourth accused was arrested and he gave confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.4. Pursuant to the same, A-4 produced M.O.3, stick, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and from the accused were sent for chemical analysis. g) On 17. 2001, the Investigating Officer took the custody of the accused Nos.1 to 3 on application. A-1 gave confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.6. Pursuant to the same, A-1 produced the material objects, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-2 volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.8. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.2, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Pursuant to the same, A-1 produced the material objects, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-2 volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.8. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.2, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-3 also gave confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.10, pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.4 stick, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation. Exs.P.25 to 27, the Chemical Reports and Exs.P.28 to 31, the Serologists reports were received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and relied on 31 exhibits and 12 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. On the side of the defence, only one witness was examined, through whom 4 documents were marked. After hearing the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the trial court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case so far as A-1 to A-3 were concerned, as found above and awarded punishments, as referred to above and A-4 was acquitted of the charged levelled against him. Hence A-1 to A-3 have brought forth Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2005, challenging the judgment of the trial court. 6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions: a) According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 a.m. at the place of occurrence as put forth by the them. The first and foremost thing which casts a doubt on the prosecution case is that even as per the the Investigator, a case came to be registered in Crime No.522 of 2001 on the complaint given by the accused. The first and foremost thing which casts a doubt on the prosecution case is that even as per the the Investigator, a case came to be registered in Crime No.522 of 2001 on the complaint given by the accused. But, the prosecution prevented the court from knowing the genesis of occurrence. Further, the F.I.R. or the statement or the final report or the medical report was not filed by the prosecution. But, at the time when D.W.1 was examined, Exs.D.1 to D.3, the wound certificates, were marked, which would clearly indicate the injuries sustained by the accused. A perusal of those documents would clearly indicate that A-1 and A-3 sustained grievous injuries. Though some of the injuries found were simple, but they were on the vital parts of the body. Hence a duty is cast upon the prosecution to explain as to how the appellants sustained injuries. The witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to 4, in particular P.Ws.1 and 2, the injured witnesses, have pleaded no knowledge about the same. Thus, the suppression of material documents pertaining to Crime No.522 of 2001, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as to the injuries sustained, would go to show that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and also never placed all the materials before the court in order to find out the actual crime that has been committed. b) In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 a.m. P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 9.00 a.m. and registered the case at 11.00 a.m., but the F.I.R. reached the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirukazhukundram at about 6.45 p.m. Even as per the admission made by the Investigating Officer, the police station is situated just 3/4 kms. from the court. But, there was an inordinate delay noticed, which remains unexplained. Further, in the instant case, when P.W.1 was examined before the Doctor, P.W.10, he has stated that he was attacked by 13 known persons and hence all would cast a doubt on the prosecution case. c) Further, it is curious to note that P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case in Crime No.509 of 2001, has pleaded no knowledge about the injuries sustained by the accused or A-1 to A-3 were actually hospitalised for taking treatment during the relevant day and time. c) Further, it is curious to note that P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case in Crime No.509 of 2001, has pleaded no knowledge about the injuries sustained by the accused or A-1 to A-3 were actually hospitalised for taking treatment during the relevant day and time. According to P.W.10, the Doctor, it would be quite clear that A-1 to A-3 were admitted in the same ward. Thus, it is highly doubtful whether Ex.P.1, the report has come into existence as put forth by the prosecution for the simple reason that according to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, he went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P.1 the statement from P.W.1. If to be so, naturally, he would have seen or known about the accused taking treatment there. But, the prosecution thoroughly suppressed the same. d) Added circumstance was the evidence of P.W.12, the Investigating Officer. According to him, he had no knowledge about the accused at all. But, he came to know about the presence of the accused only on the next day. Thus, the prosecution has not placed necessary materials before the court. In the instant case, not only delay was noticed, but also the prosecution has suppressed all the materials, thereby not enabling the court to understand the genesis as to how the transaction took place. In the instant case, the fact of double murder was carried away by the trial court and it has come to a conclusion without appreciating the entire facts and evidence put forth before it. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 8. Insofar as the other two appeals are concerned, as could be seen from the judgment of the trial court, all the three Sessions cases, namely S.C.Nos.533, 534 and 535 of 2003 were taken on file on the private complaints and the committal court thought it fit that those cases must be taken by the Sessions Court. Those cases have arisen from the very same transaction. Aggrieved over the judgment of the trial court, these two appeals have arisen. 9. Those cases have arisen from the very same transaction. Aggrieved over the judgment of the trial court, these two appeals have arisen. 9. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.772 and 773 of 2005, the learned counsel, in short, would submit that the trial court has found the accused in Crime No.509 of 2001 guilty of murder and also the other provisions of Penal Code and under these circumstances, the trial court should not have found that these appellants were the aggressors; that they were not involved in the crime and hence the trial court should have acquitted them, but on the contrary, it has found the appellants guilty as stated above and awarded punishments, which has got to be set aside. 10. The court also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 11. This Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also made a thorough scrutiny of the materials available. 12. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 7.30 a.m. on 7. 2001 in front of the house of the deceased. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the case in Crime No.509 of 2001, examined four witnesses, out of whom two were injured witnesses and the other two were eyewitnesses. P.W.4 was the child witness. It is not in controversy that both the deceased, namely the husband and wife, were done to death in the said occurrence. Both the dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem by P.W.9, the Doctor attached to the Chengalpattu Medical College, who has issued Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15, the post-mortem certificates in respect of Chockalingam and Visalakshi respectively and has also opined that they died out of homicidal violence. Apart from that, the fact that both the deceased died out of homicidal violence was not questioned by the appellants/accused at any stage of trial. Hence no impediment is felt in recording so. 13. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to substantiate that at the time of occurrence, A-1 accompanied by A-2 to A-4 with deadly weapons went to the place of occurrence and caused the death of both the deceased. This Court is afraid, after the scrutiny of the entire materials, whether the conviction could be sustained. 13. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to substantiate that at the time of occurrence, A-1 accompanied by A-2 to A-4 with deadly weapons went to the place of occurrence and caused the death of both the deceased. This Court is afraid, after the scrutiny of the entire materials, whether the conviction could be sustained. In the instant case, even as per the evidence of Investigator, the case in Crime No.522 of 2001 came to be registered at the instance of the accused. As could be seen from the materials, A1 to A-3 were actually treated by P.W.10, the Doctor. From his evidence, it would be quite clear that they came for treatment with the police memo on the very day. Thus, it would be indicative of the fact that these accused persons went to the police station and gave a complaint, pursuant to which, the case in Crime No.522 of 2001 was registered and they were issued police memo and they went for medical treatment. 14. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that P.W.11 was the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case in Crime No.509 of 2001. According to him, he went, on information, to the Government Hospital, where he met P.W.1, who was under treatment, and recorded his statement, pursuant to which the case in Crime No.509 of 2001 was registered for murder and also for the other crimes. At the time of cross examination, he pleaded that he had no knowledge about the presence of A-1 to A-3 in the hospital. One Chellaperumal, the Special Sub Inspector, registered the case at the instance of the accused, but he has not been examined. It is pertinent to point out that while crime No.522 of 2001 was shown to be a part and parcel of transaction in Crime No.509 of 2001, naturally, a duty is cast upon the prosecution agency to place in fairness all materials pertaining to Crime No.522 of 2001 also, but the prosecution has not even filed the F.I.R. copy, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the final report and the medical evidence in this regard. The Investigator has pleaded that he did not know whether these accused were hospitalised or were taken for treatment on the very day. The Investigator has pleaded that he did not know whether these accused were hospitalised or were taken for treatment on the very day. It is curious to note that the Investigator, who took up investigation in Crime No.509 of 2001 within a short span of time, pleaded no knowledge about the registration of the other case and also the treatment that was underwent by the accused. All would go to show that Crime No.522 of 2001 was not at all taken up for investigation, but on the contrary, it was closed as mistake of fact. 15. It is true, the occurrence took place in front of the house of the deceased. But, at the same time, in the same transaction, A-1 to A-3 sustained injuries and Exs.D.1 to D.3, the wound certificates were also marked. It is to be noted that two accused sustained grievous injuries. But, P.Ws.1 to 4, out of whom P.Ws.1 and 2 were the injured witnesses, pleaded no knowledge and they went to an extent to tell that they did not know as to how the injuries were sustained by the accused. Thus, it would clearly indicate that the prosecution witnesses did not speak the truth. It is not the case of prosecution that the injuries sustained by A-1 to A-3 were in different place or in a different manner, but it was a part and parcel of the transaction in question. If to be so, the prosecution should have brought not only the files pertaining to Crime No.522 of 2001, but also should have explained as to the injuries sustained by the accused, but failed to do so. 16. The added circumstance was the delay caused. Admittedly, according to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirukazhukundram is situated 3/4 Km. from the police station. If to be so, if the case has been registered at about 11.00 a.m. as put forth by P.W.11, there was no impediment in sending the F.I.R. immediately to the Court. According to P.W.12, the F.I.R. was sent immediately. If to be so, it should have reached the Court in time, but reached the court at about 6.45 p.m. and there was a delay of nearly more than six hours. When the Court is situated 3/4 Km. from the police station, this delay of six hours would tell upon the prosecution case. If to be so, it should have reached the Court in time, but reached the court at about 6.45 p.m. and there was a delay of nearly more than six hours. When the Court is situated 3/4 Km. from the police station, this delay of six hours would tell upon the prosecution case. All would go to show that the prosecution has not brought forth all materials necessary to sustain conviction and to enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion in this case. Thus, it can be well stated that there was not only delay, but the injuries sustained by the accused were never explained by the prosecution. All would go to show that the prosecution did not bring home the guilt of the accused. It is true, it is a case of double murder, but the prosecution, in fairness, should have brought forth all necessary evidence to arrive at a correct conclusion by the court. The prosecution did not make the court to enable to take a correct decision. Under these circumstances, the prosecution suffered for all its defects and hence the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside. 17. So far as the other two appeals are concerned, the judgment of the trial court has got to be necessarily set aside for two reasons. It could be seen that the first case in Crime No.509 of 2001 was the subject matter of the first appeal, as stated above. So far as Crime No.522 of 2001 was concerned, it is not a separate transaction, but it is a part of the earlier transaction. Under these circumstances, both the cases should have been jointly tried, but not done so. Having taken a view in Crime No.509 of 2001 that the transaction was true and the accused were found guilty, the trial court has taken a contra view in the other three sessions cases as if the accused therein/appellants in Crl.A. Nos. 772 and 773 of 2005 have committed the offence. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and under these circumstances, the judgment of the trial court, which is the subject matter of these two appeals, also has got to be set aside. 18. 772 and 773 of 2005 have committed the offence. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and under these circumstances, the judgment of the trial court, which is the subject matter of these two appeals, also has got to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in the respective appeals are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them. Accordingly, all the three criminal appeals are allowed.