Judgment :- K. Sreedhar Rao, J. The facts of the prosecution case discloses that 15 days prior to the incident accused No.6(A6) – Fajarulla @ Munna, tress passed into the house of PW5-Chaman Sab when he was absent at the house. A6 attempted to rape PW12-Mamtaz, W/o Chaman Sab (PW5). In that connection PW12 and PW5 have not made any complaint but there is a quarrel between them. A6 was claiming that he has illicit affair with PW12. There was bitter enmity between A6 and P.W.5. 2. On 22-08-2001 at 2-30 PM, A1 to A24 formed themselves into members of unlawful assembly wielding deadly weapons tress passed into the house of PW5. A1, A2 and A6 assaulted PW5, A17 to A20 (women accused) and A24 had assaulted PW12 and also they were giving moral support to PW1 and the deceased. PW8, PW9, PW16 and CW13 had intervened and pacified the accused. 3. The PW1 and deceased returned by jeep to the village from Shimoga. The accused persons came near the jeep. A1 dragged the deceased and assaulted him with club on his head. A6 assaulted the deceased with club on his hands. PW1 was getting down from the jeep and he was assaulted by A6 with chopper on his head and A1 with club on the head. The deceased sustained fatal injuries. The jeep was also damaged. PW1 and deceased were admitted to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga. The deceased succumbed to the injuries after two days while under treatment in Bangalore. 4. The statement of PW1 was recorded at Mc. Gann Hospital at Ex.P1. The same is registered as FIR at 10-40PM vide Ex.P2. PW1 had sustained grievous injuries and PW5 had sustained simple injuries. PW15 was not subjected to medical examination to ascertain the nature of injuries. The accused are charged for committing the offence punishable u/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 341, 324, 504, 323, 506, 427 and 302 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. The charge under Section 143 and 147 IPC appears to be redundant and superfluous since when they are charged for higher offence under Section 148 IPC. 5. The defence evidence placed on record would disclose that accused 2 and 8 sustained injuries. The charge under Section 143 and 147 IPC appears to be redundant and superfluous since when they are charged for higher offence under Section 148 IPC. 5. The defence evidence placed on record would disclose that accused 2 and 8 sustained injuries. Accused No.2 had lodged a counter complaint against the deceased, PW1, 3 to 5, 9 and 12 for committing the offence under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 149 IPC. The FIR in the present case is registered in Cr.No.90/2001. The FIR in the complaint lodged by A2 against PW1 and others is registered in Cr.No.91/2001. In both the cases the complaint of PW1 and A2 are recorded at Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga. 6. The wound certificate of A2 is marked at Ex.D11, which shows contusion injury over the right leg and it is simple in nature. The wound certificate of accused No.8 is marked as Ex.D5, which shows that swelling over the left leg and tenderness over left back middle of forearm. The X-ray reveals no fracture. The injury is a simple injury. 7. The Investigating Officer filed ‘B’ report in Cr.No.91/2001. The A2 filed protest petition, the said case is registered as PCR No.119/2004. The learned counsel Sri A.H. Bhagwan appearing for the appellant – accused submits that he does not know the result of the private complaint, except the fact that the private complaint was pending in the year 2005. 8. PW1 and 5 are the injured eyewitnesses. PW12 is the victim of the assault and also eyewitness to the incident. PW4 and 7 to 9 are also eyewitnesses to the incident of assault on PW5 and 12 in the first phase and also assault on the deceased and PW1 in the second phase of the incident. Ex.P1 report discloses that the deceased had sustained fracture of skull, which resulted in his death. PW1 had sustained grievous injuries and PW5 has sustained simple injuries in the assault. The weapons used for the commission of the offence have been recovered at the scene of the offence under mahazar marked at Ex.P2. 9. The trial court convicted A1 to A24 for the offence punishable u/s 143, 324, 323 r/w 149 IPC. A3, A4, A5, A7 to A24 are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 147 IPC. A1, A2 and A6 are convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.148 IPC. 9. The trial court convicted A1 to A24 for the offence punishable u/s 143, 324, 323 r/w 149 IPC. A3, A4, A5, A7 to A24 are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 147 IPC. A1, A2 and A6 are convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec.148 IPC. A1 is convicted for an offence u/s 302 IPC. 10. The discriminatory convictions recorded by the trial court is perversely erroneous and smacks the ignorance of the trial judge on the basic aspects of criminal law and trial, when the accused are convicted u/s 148, it is unnecessary to convict them again u/s 143 and 147 IPC. Further, when the accused were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 148 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. all the accused are to uniformly for all the offences. Be that as it may, the State has not filed any appeal against unjust acquittals. 11. All the convicted accused have filed the appeal. In the FIR it is stated that all the accused come wielding clubs. A1 and A6 dragged the deceased from the jeep. A1 assaulted the deceased with club. A6 assaulted PW1 with sword on his head. A1 assaulted PW1 with club on his hands in the second phase of the incident. In the first phase of the incident, the accused trespassed into the house of the PW5 and A1 and A6 assaulted PW2. A17 to A20 and A24 assaulted PW12 with hands. 12. The evidence of PW1 discloses that A1 and A6 dragged the deceased from the jeep. A1 assaulted deceased on his head with club. A6 assaulted him with club on his thighs. A1 assaulted PW1 with club and A6 assaulted PW1 with sword on his head in the second phase of the incident. 13. The evidence of PW4 discloses that in the first phase of the incident A1 assaulted PW5 on his head with club and A6 assaulted PW1 on his hand with sword. The A17 to A20 and A24 assaulted P.W.12. In the second phase of the incident, when PW1 and deceased returned to the village by jeep. A.1 beat the deceased with club on his head and A6 beat deceased on his thighs. Further, A.1 beat PW1 with sword on his head and A.1 beat PW1 with club on his hands. 14. The A17 to A20 and A24 assaulted P.W.12. In the second phase of the incident, when PW1 and deceased returned to the village by jeep. A.1 beat the deceased with club on his head and A6 beat deceased on his thighs. Further, A.1 beat PW1 with sword on his head and A.1 beat PW1 with club on his hands. 14. The evidence of PW5 discloses that in the first phase of the incident A.1 beat PW5 with club on his head, A2 beat PW5 with club on his right hand. A.6 was standing out side wielding sword and further A17 to A20 and A24 beat PW12 with hands. 15. The evidence of PW7 discloses that in the first phase of the incident A1 beat PW5 on his head with club, A.2 beat with club on his hand, A.6 was standing outside wielding sword. In the second phase of the incident PW1 and deceased came by jeep to the village, the deceased was dragged out of the jeep. A1 assaulted the deceased with club on his head. A.6 assaulted the deceased with club on his thighs and he also assaulted the Complainant – PW1 with club on his head. 16. The evidence of PW8 discloses that in the first phase of the incident A.1 and A2 beat PW5 with club and A6 was standing out side wielding sword. PW8 does not make any mention about the assault on PW12. But he states that A3 was abusing and waiting for the deceased to cause his death. In the second phase of incident when the deceased and PW1 returned by jeep, A1 assaulted PW1 with club on his head. A.2 to A.5 PW2 to PW5 and other accused beat PW5 and kicked him. A.1 beat PW1 with chopper and A6 beat him with knife. PW8 does not state that A.6 assaulting the deceased and the assault on PW.1 by A.1. 17. The evidence of PW9 discloses that in the first phase of assault A1 beat PW5 with club on his left hand and A.6 was standing out side wielding sword. He also deposed that some women accused assaulting PW12. The A.3 was waiting for arrival of deceased to cause his murder. When PW1 and deceased came by jeep A.1 beat the deceased with clubs on his head and A.6 assaulted PW1 on his head with club. He also deposed that some women accused assaulting PW12. The A.3 was waiting for arrival of deceased to cause his murder. When PW1 and deceased came by jeep A.1 beat the deceased with clubs on his head and A.6 assaulted PW1 on his head with club. A.2 beat PW1 with club on his head. This witness also does not spoke about A.6 assaulting the deceased and A.1 assaulting PW.1 18. The evidence of PW12 disclose that in the first phase of assault A.1 dragged PW5 from the house and A.2 beat PW5 with club on his hands. The Women accused assaulted PW12. A.6 was standing out side wielding sword. The accused persons were waiting for arrival of deceased to cause his death. When the deceased and PW1 came by jeep A.1 beat the deceased with club on his head. A.6 beat the deceased on his thighs with club. A.6 also beat PW1 with sword on his head and A.1 beat PW1 with club on his right hand. 19. The evidence of the above witnesses consistently disclose the presence and overt acts of A.1 and A.2 assaulting PW5. A17 to A20 and A24 assaulting PW12 and A.6 was giving moral support to them standing outside wielding sword in the first phase of the incident at the house of PW5. With regard to the second phase of the incident the evidence discloses that A.1 and A6 assaulted deceased with club and they also assaulted PW.1. A.1 and A6 have also assaulted PW.1 and PW5. 20. In careful analysis of the evidence the participation and overt acts are attributed to A.1, A2, A6, A17 to A20 and A24 in the first phase of assault. In the second phase of assault the overt acts are attributed to A.1 and A6 for causing murder and causing grievous injuries to PW5. The evidence does not incriminate and state the specific participation and overt acts of the other accused. 21. The learned counsel Mr. A.H. Bhagawan, appearing for the appellant on the basis of the evidence on record strenuously made following submissions to assail the order of conviction: (a) The complaint of A.2 and PW1 has been recorded simultaneously at Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga simultaneously. The I.O. has suppressed the complaint of A.2. (b) The prosecution does not explain the genesis of the incident and does not state as to who is the aggressor. Gann Hospital, Shimoga simultaneously. The I.O. has suppressed the complaint of A.2. (b) The prosecution does not explain the genesis of the incident and does not state as to who is the aggressor. (c) The injuries on A.2 and A8 are not explained. (d) The assault by A.1 on the deceased is a distinct act and cannot be construed as ‘in furtherance of common object’. 22. On the basis of the above discrepancies the conviction of A.1 for the offence u/s 302 IPC is bad in law. At the most A.1 be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 part-I IPC. 23. The material on record discloses that the I.O. has not placed all the necessary and relevant material in the final report to justify the prosecution of the accused for the offences charged with. The final report does not explain the genesis of the incident and does not indicate as to which group is the aggressor. The final report is filed in an uncanny and imprudent manner with terrible casualness. 24. The defence version discloses that A2 and A8 are also injured in the incident. The complaint of A2 and PW1 is recorded simultaneously in the Mc.Gann Hospital. The complaint of PW1 is registered firstly and the complaint of A.2 is registered immediately next to complaint of PW1. The I.O. has filed ‘B’ report in respect of the complaint of A2. In the final report concerning this case, the wound certificates of A.1 and A.2 and the final report submitted in Cr.No.91/2001 are not filed. The said lapse is fatal and does not correctly depict the comprehensive view of the incident. 25. Initially, when the complaint of PW1 and A2 was registered, it was in the nature of a case and counter case. If for any reason the I.O. has found that the complaint of A.2 is baseless and filed ‘B’ report, it is necessary that he should make that report a part of the record in the final report in question. In the column No.17 of the final report submitted u/s 173 of Cr.PC the I.O. has to give summary of the material facts of the case and nature of complicity of the accused with the offence. 26. In the column No.17 of the final report submitted u/s 173 of Cr.PC the I.O. has to give summary of the material facts of the case and nature of complicity of the accused with the offence. 26. In case and counter, in the final report of both the cases, the I.O., has to necessarily furnish all the documents pertaining to the other case and should explain the genesis of the incident explaining whether it is a free fight between two persons/groups and that both are aggressors. The I.O. should state whether one of the persons/groups is an aggressor and that whether the other has caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. It is necessary that the I.O. should explain the injuries on the accused. The final report should necessarily contain the above material to enable the prosecutors to lead evidence correctly and for the Judge to understand the incident in a proper legal perspective to understand the guilt of the accused. 27. It is well-settled principle in a case and a counter the same I.O. should investigate both the cases and should file final report. The different prosecutors should conduct prosecution, the same Judge should try the cases simultaneously and render separate judgments. It is a judicial dicta that the Court should not read/get influenced by the evidence recorded in the other case, unless the said material in the other case is marked as an evidence in the case in question. To say that the Court should not read/influenced by the evidence recorded in the other case under all circumstances would be a perverse view and runs counter to the logic of holding simultaneous investigation by the same I.O. and trial by the same Judge. Otherwise, it is impossible for the Judge to appreciate the guilt of the accused to find out whether both are aggressors and both are guilty of indulging in free fight or one of them is an aggressor and the other caused injuries on the accused in exercise of right of private defence. 28. Otherwise, it is impossible for the Judge to appreciate the guilt of the accused to find out whether both are aggressors and both are guilty of indulging in free fight or one of them is an aggressor and the other caused injuries on the accused in exercise of right of private defence. 28. In this regard for useful benefit, the provisions of Madras Police Standing Orders pertaining to investigation of a case and a counter in Rule-588A are extracted hereunder: “588-A: Charge sheets in cases and counter cases: In a complaint and counter complaint obviously arising out of the same transaction the Investigating Officer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses, viz., (1) to charge the case whether 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 certificates of persons wounded on the opposite sides. 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 to one complaint and examine only witnesses who support it and give no explanations 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 choice 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 complainant or the counter-complainant, as the case may be should be advised about the disposal by a notice in F.96 and to seek remedy before the specific Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police”. 29. We place on record that we have not come across any single case so far where the final reports in case and counter are filed in the manner indicated above. 29. We place on record that we have not come across any single case so far where the final reports in case and counter are filed in the manner indicated above. The imprudent and casual practice of submitting final reports without reference to relevant material of the connected case would only result in improper prosecution and many a time the truth of the incident is not projected before the Court, which ultimately result in unjust conviction or unjust acquittal. The Karnataka Police Manual does not lay down any guidelines for the I.O. regarding the procedures to be followed in the investigation of a case and counter and for filing the final report. It is high time that the necessary amendments have to be effected to the Karnataka Police Manual in this regard. 30. In the instant case, the I.O. has suppressed truthful facts. It is in evidence that PW1, A-2 and A.8 were admitted to Mc.Gann hospital. The complains of PW1 and A.2 have been recorded at Me.gann hospital, why then the wound certificates of A-2 and A-8 are issued by PHC, Anandapur and not by Me gann Hospital. The I.O. does not explain the injuries on the A-2 and A-8. It is the duty on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused. The A.2 and A.8 have produced their wound certificates and copy of the private complaints in their defence. The I.O. has not produced the final report in Crime No.91/2001 to explain the genesis of the incident and to show which party is an aggressor. In the absence of complete material relating to incident, it will be difficult for the court to adjudge the guilt of the accused. 31. The FIR lodged by A-2 probabilises the fact that, PW-1, PW-3 to P.W5, PW.9 and PW12 along with the deceased have also indulged in the acts of assault on A-2 and A-8 who were also admitted to Me gann hospital simultaneously along with the deceased and PW-1. In the circumstances, it can be inferred that in a state of quarrel between the two groups the assault takes place and injuries are inflicted on the members of both the group. The case of the prosecution discloses that in the second phase of attack, it was only A1 and A6 who deal blows on the deceased. The others said to have fisted and kicked the deceased. The case of the prosecution discloses that in the second phase of attack, it was only A1 and A6 who deal blows on the deceased. The others said to have fisted and kicked the deceased. But there are no corresponding injuries to corroborate the overt acts of fisting and kicking. The trial court has committed a grave error in acquitting A-6 for an offence u/s 302 IPC. The trial court has convicted only A.1 u/s 302 IPC. Since there is no appeal by the State against the acquittal of A.6, it may not be proper to reconsider the order of acquittal. 32. The evidence of the witnesses implicate A-1, A-2, A-6, A-17 to A-20 and A-24 with overt acts of assaulting PW-1, PW-5, PW-12 and the deceased. There is no reference to the overt acts of A.3 to A.5, A7 to A.16 and A21 to A.23. The conviction of A.1, A.2, A.6, A.17 to A20 and A.24 for offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.149 IPC is confirmed. 33. The conviction of A.3 to A.5, A.7 to A.16 and A.21 to A.23 u/s 143, 147, 323, 324 r/w Sec. 149 IPC is set aside. 34. The conviction of A.1, A.2 and A.6 u/s 148 IPC is confirmed, although improper to the extent in acquitting the other accused who are guilty u/s 148 IPC. 35. A-1 is convicted for offence u/s 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to R.I. for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for a period of two years. Communicate the operative portion of the order to the Jail Authorities as well as to the trial Court forthwith. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to the Home Secretary, Director General of Police and Hon’ble Law Minister to give effect to the observations made in paras 26, 27 and 28 regarding the procedure to be followed by the I.O. in a ‘case and counter’ and for effecting necessary amendments to the Karnataka Police Manual.