Judgment :- 1. The appellants herein are accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in S.C.No.22 of 2001, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. The first accused stands convicted under Section 304(II), IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and the second accused stands convicted under Sections 304(II) and 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years’ imprisonment and one year’s rigorous imprisonment respectively and the third accused stands convicted under Section 324, IPC (two count) and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for each count and Accused Nos.5 to 8 stand convicted under Section 324, IPC and each sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of imprisonment are to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 is the son of one Nachimuthu Gounder, deceased in this case and P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2; and P.Ws.4 and 6 are the nephews of the deceased. There was some dispute between the accused party and deceased party with regard to irrigating the field. On 20.08.1998 at 5.00 p.m., the accused came with casurina sticks and reaper and quarreled with P.Ws.2 to 4. At that time, the deceased/father of P.W.4 came and interfered. Then the first accused saying that the deceased is responsible for all the troubles and so saying, he attacked him with a stick on his head. The second accused attacked the deceased on the left eye. Third and fourth accused attacked P.W.1 with reaper stick on his head. The accused 2, 5, 6 and 7 also attacked others. A.9 and A.10 threw Chilly powder. After the occurrence, the accused fled away from the scene. The deceased was taken to the hospital and on the way he died. P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital. 3. P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police of Tharapuram Police Station on receiving the intimation, went to the Government Hospital, Tharapuram on 20.08.1999 at about 8.45 p.m., and received the Complainant from Kalimuthu-P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.331 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307, IPC and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.P.27. 3. P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police of Tharapuram Police Station on receiving the intimation, went to the Government Hospital, Tharapuram on 20.08.1999 at about 8.45 p.m., and received the Complainant from Kalimuthu-P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.331 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307, IPC and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.P.27. He also received a Complaint from the 2nd accused Aruchamy who was also in the hospital and registered the case in Crime No.332 of 1999 under Sections 148, 147 and 324, IPC. 4. P.W.7 is the Doctor of Tharapuram Government Hospital who had treated P.W.1 and admitted in the Hospital. He noticed the following injuries on P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.6-Wound Certificate: “A lacerated injury on the right parietal region 3 x ¼ x ¼ cm. A contusion in the left hand 1 x 1 cm.” The Doctor had examined P.W.4-Thangavel, who was injured, gave treatment and he noticed the following injuries and issued Ex.P.7-Wound Certificate: “A lacerated injury on the top lip 1 x ¼ x ¼ cms. A contusion in the right elbow ½ x ½ cm. A contusion in the left wrist ½ x ½ cms.” The Doctor had examined P.W.3-Lakshmiammal and noticed the following injuries and issued Ex.P.8-Wound Certificate: “A lacerated injury on the head measuring 5 x ¼ x ¼ cm. A lacerated injury on the right middle finger measuring 1 x ½ x ½ cm.” The Doctor examined P.W.2-Kandiyappa Gounder and noticed the following injuries and issued Ex.P.9: “A lacerated injury on the head measuring 3 x ½ x ½ cm. A lacerated injury on the left parietal region 2 x ½ x ½. A lacerated injury on the right parietal region 1 x ½ x ½ A lacerated injury on the right parietal region 1 x ½ x ½ cm.” 5. P.W.19-Inspector of Police received the copy of the First Information Report and also received intimation from the hospital that Nachimuthu Gounder had died and therefore he altered the case into Section 302, IPC and prepared the Express First Information Report, Ex.P.42. He went to the scene of occurrence and stayed there in the night. On the next day at 6.00 p.m., prepared the observation mahazar and also drew the Rough Sketch. He recovered the articles from the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5-Mahazar. He went to the scene of occurrence and stayed there in the night. On the next day at 6.00 p.m., prepared the observation mahazar and also drew the Rough Sketch. He recovered the articles from the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5-Mahazar. Then he came back to the hospital and held inquest and prepared Inquest Report-Ex.P.45 and also recorded the statement of witnesses. On 27.09.1998, he arrested the accused 1 to 6 and 9 and 8 and also recorded the confessional statement of the accused and in pursuance of the confession given by the accused, he recovered the reaper stick and bamboo stick. He completed the investigation in Crime No.331 of 2009 and laid the final report for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 324, 302 r/w 149. 6. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 19 Witnesses and marked 45 Exhibits and 30 Material Objects were produced. On the side of the defence no witness was examined but 2 Exhibits were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity. 7. The Trial Court after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused A.4, A.9 and A.10 and convicted and sentenced the remaining accused as stated above. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not come forward with true version and though accused 2 and 6 were also injured, none of the witnesses have spoken about the injuries sustained by them. The Investigation Officer also has not placed before this Court, the Complaint given by the sixth accused and the relevant materials with regard to the Investigation on the basis of the Complaint given by the accused. The defence had taken steps to mark Wound Certificate of A.2 and A.6 as Ex.D.1 and D.2. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision reported in Krishnan v. State of Haryana, 2007 (2) SCC (Crl) 214. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that P.Ws. 1 to 4 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, being injured witnesses, narrated the occurrence, and their evidence was also corroborated by medical by marking the relevant Wound Certificates. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that even on the basis of the Complaint given by the 6th accused, investigation has been conducted and it has been closed and the final report was filed. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that even on the basis of the Complaint given by the 6th accused, investigation has been conducted and it has been closed and the final report was filed. He further added that the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused and they are only simple in nature does not affect the prosecution case. 11. This Court considered the submission made by both parties and perused the records. It appears that there had been some dispute between the accused party and among the deceased party with regard to irrigating the field. The occurrence had taken place when P.W.4 was irrigating the field at about 5.00 p.m., on the date of occurrence. It appears that the 6th accused had only questioned. P.W.4 about watering the field saying that P.W.4 should have awaited the decision of the Panchayat. While there was exchange of words between P.W.4 and A.6, A.1 and A.2, A.1 shouted that the deceased was responsible for the problem and that he should be finished off. So saying, he gave a below on the head of the deceased with a wooden log. Only in pursuance of this, the occurrence had taken place. 12. A.2 and A.6 were also attacked. The 6th accused was admitted in the hospital and according to P.W.15. The Sub-Inspector of Police while the went to receive the complaint from P.W.1, he also received the Complaint from A.6 and registered the case. Apart from A.6, A.2 and A.3 were also injured in this case. Ex.D.1 is the Wound Certificate for the injuries sustained by A.2. He had sustained injury on the head and the left shoulder and the let forehead. Ex.D.2 is the Accident Certificate relating to A.6 and he had sustained fracture on the right hand. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused sustained injuries in a different occurrence at a different time. Though the Investigating Officer had given evidence about receiving complaint from A.6 and registering the case, he has not placed any valid material before the Court. Even the Complaint given by the A.6 has not been placed before the Court. 13. In the said circumstances, it is to be held that the prosecution has not come with true version and the origin of the occurrence is also suppressed. 14. Even the Complaint given by the A.6 has not been placed before the Court. 13. In the said circumstances, it is to be held that the prosecution has not come with true version and the origin of the occurrence is also suppressed. 14. It is held in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Babu Ram and another v. State of Punjab, 2008 (3) SCC 709 , it has been observed in paragraphs 18 and 19 as follows: “18. It is a well-settled law 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.” (See Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) 19. Further, it is important to point out that 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 completes in probability with that of the prosecution one.” In the decision relied on by the learned Prosecutor in Krishnan and Others v. State of Haryana (Supra) it is observed that “it is well-settled that merely because prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the accused, the same cannot be a solitary ground for doubting the prosecution case, if otherwise, evidence relied upon is found to be credible. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gajey Singh and another, 2009 (3) SCALE 337 , in which it has been observed in paragraph32 as follows: 32. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gajey Singh and another, 2009 (3) SCALE 337 , in which it has been observed in paragraph32 as follows: 32. Three Judges Bench of this Court in Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel and Others V. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (9) SCC 1 , observed that it is well settled that if injuries on the defence are not explained by the prosecution, the same may be taken to be a ground to discard the prosecution case, in case the truthfulness of prosecution case is otherwise doubted. But in cases like the present one, where there is consistent evidence of the injured eyewitnesses apart from evidence of independent eyewitnesses, even if it assumed that the prosecution has failed to explain the minor and simple injuries on the defence, the same cannot be taken to be a ground to reject the testimony of such witnesses. In the instant case, the injuries were neither superficial not minor therefore, non-explanation of serious injuries in the instant case doubts the very genesis of the prosecution version.” 15. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, this Court is to draw the inference that the prosecution has not presented the true version and the origin of occurrence is not established and the eye-witnesses have deliberately suppressed the part of the transaction in which accused are injured. 16. For the above said reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and in the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused are set aside and the Appeal is allowed.