Judgment :- T. Sudanthiram, J. 1. The appellants herein, who are Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, stand convicted and sentenced as follows: A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi was convicted for the offences under Section 324 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 IPC; to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in de-fault, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A.2-Sakila was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1-Alamelu is the wife of P.W.2-Thiagarajan. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. A.3-Madhiazhagan is the brother of A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the neighbours of accused Nos. 1 and 2. There was dispute between them with regard to fencing. There had been panchayat also in respect of it. A.2-Sakila was searching for onion basket for past two days prior to the occurrence day. On 12. 2002, at about 6 p.m., when she found the onion basket in front of the house of P.W.1-Alamelu, she questioned P.W.1-Alamelu as to how it was available in front of her house. P.W.1-Alamelu told A.2-Sakila that if her plastic basket was available, she could take it to her house. A.2-Sakila scolded P.W.1-Alamelu saying that she had committed theft, in turn, P.W.1-Alamelu also abused her. At about 7.30 p.m., A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi returned to his house and A.2-Sakila informed him about the occurrence. Then, A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi also started abusing P.W. 1-Alamelu. At that time, the deceased- Thottiyathan, who was junior paternal uncle of P.W 2-Thiagarajan,was sitting in front of the house. P.W.2-Thiagarajan, the husband of P.W.1-Alamelu and P.W.3-Thangasamy and P.W.4-Devendiran, who are the brothers of P.W.2-Thiagarajan, also returned home and P.W.1-Alamelu informed them about what had happened. Then, A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi also started abusing P.W. 1-Alamelu. At that time, the deceased- Thottiyathan, who was junior paternal uncle of P.W 2-Thiagarajan,was sitting in front of the house. P.W.2-Thiagarajan, the husband of P.W.1-Alamelu and P.W.3-Thangasamy and P.W.4-Devendiran, who are the brothers of P.W.2-Thiagarajan, also returned home and P.W.1-Alamelu informed them about what had happened. A.3-Madhiazhagan came there at that time and went to the house of A.1-Sullan alias Chinnathambi. A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi came out of the house with M.O.I-Crowbar and attacked the deceased-Thottiyathan on his head and A.2-Sakila attacked the deceased-Thottiyathan on his chest with a brick. P.W.4-Devendiran tried to catch-hold of A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi and at that time, A.3-Madhiazhagan brought M.O.2-Aruval from the house and attacked P.W.4-Devendiran with it on the head, right hand thumb, right leg and A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi attacked P.W. Thangasamy with M.O.1-crowbar on his head and left eyebrow. As P.W.2-Thiagarajan tried to prevent it, A.3-Madhiazhagan at-tacked him with M.O.2-Aruval on his head, left side of chest and left leg. After attacking them, all the three accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 to 8. P.Ws.9 and 10 took the deceased in TVS-50 vehicle to P.W.16-Dr.Natarajan, who was available in that village. At about 8.45 p.m., P.W. 16-Dr.Natarajan on seeing Thottiyathan, declared him dead. The body of the deceased-Thottiyathan was brought back to house and laid down. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 went to the Police Station by walk as no bus facility was available at that time and P.W.1-Alamelu gave complaint to P.W.27-Sub Inspector Lakshmanan of Kattumannarkoil Police Station and on receiving Exhibit P-1-complaint on 112. 2002 at 2 a.m., he registered a case in Crime No. 623 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and prepared Exhibit P-13-First Information Report. P. W.28-Inspector Jayapal, on receiving the information, went to the Police Station at 9.30 a.m. on 112. 2002 and received the copy of Exhibit P-13-FIR. He went to the scene of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. and prepared Exhibit P-2- Observation mahazar and Exhibit P-14-Rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. P.W.14-Lakshmanan and P.15-Ravi. From the scene of occurrence, he recovered M.O.3-plastic basket and M.O.4-broken brick weighing about 1 kg under Exhibits P-3 and P4-mahazars respectively in the presence of same witnesses. He went to the scene of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. and prepared Exhibit P-2- Observation mahazar and Exhibit P-14-Rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. P.W.14-Lakshmanan and P.15-Ravi. From the scene of occurrence, he recovered M.O.3-plastic basket and M.O.4-broken brick weighing about 1 kg under Exhibits P-3 and P4-mahazars respectively in the presence of same witnesses. He held inquest from 12.15 p.m. to 3 p.m. on the body of the deceased-Thottiyathan in the presence of panchayatars and prepared Exhibit P-15-Inquest Report. He gave Exhibit P-S-requisition for conducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased-Thottiyathan. P.W. 17-Dr. Veeranarayanan received Exhibit P-5-requisition on 112. 2002 at 5.05 p.m. and conducted Autopsy on the body ofthe deceased-Thottiyathan on 112. 2002 at 11 a.m. and found the following - External Injuries: 1) Contusion about 3 inches x 2 inches behind the left Ear pinna – on which 1 inch x 1 inch abrasion seen. 2) Abrasion about 1 /2 inch x 1 /2 inch on the left Pinna dorsal aspect. 3) Contusion about 2 inch x2 inch on the left chest below and around the left nipple. 4) Contusion about 2 inch x 2 inch over the occipital area of scalp. 5) Abrasion about 1 inch x 1/2 onch on the left upper scrotum. All injuries are anti-mortem. Internal Examination: Thorax: On opening the left side chest ex-posing the contusion – Subcutaneous and intramuscular haematoma present – under-lying 5th and 6th ribs at left side were broken. On opening the thoracic cavity left side lung multiple laceration seen and about 1 litre of blood clots and fluids were present. Right lungs -congested – Heart – Empty. C/s Pale. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach: Partially digested food particle seen about 100 gms. Pelvis–No fracture. Spinal Column – Normal. Bladder– empty. Head: On opening the skull there is subcutaneous haematoma over the occipital area. The occipital bone fractured about 1 inch horizontally and 1/2 Inch in oblique direction. About 100 gms of clotted blood in skull cavity – membrane Intact. Brain – Normal C/s Pale." He also opined that the deceased would have died of shock and hemorrhage due to Head injury and left lung injury about 40 hrs to 42 hrs prior to Post-mortem examination. Exhibit P-6 is the Post-mortem Certificate issued by him. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were sent to the hospital on Police memo and P.W.17-Dr.Veeranarayanan examined P.W.2-Thiagarajan at about 6.10 pm on 112. Exhibit P-6 is the Post-mortem Certificate issued by him. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were sent to the hospital on Police memo and P.W.17-Dr.Veeranarayanan examined P.W.2-Thiagarajan at about 6.10 pm on 112. 2002 and noted the following Injuries: "(1) Lacerated wound about 1 ½ cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over the right side scalp–occipi-tal area – dark red scab wound. (2) Contusion about 3 cm x 2 ½ cm over the left elbow joint – lateral aspect – dark colour. (3) Abrasion about 1 ½ cm x 1 cm over the right knee joint–dark colour scab wound." He gave an opinion that the injuries are simple in nature and issued Exhibit P-9-Acci-dent Register. P.W.17-Dr.Veeranarayanan examined P.W.3-Thangasamy at about 6 p.m. on 112. 2002 and found the following injuries: "(1) Lacerated wound about 1 ½ cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on the left side scalp – parietal area -covered dark coloured scab. (2) Contusion about 2 cm x 2 cm on the left forehead above left eye brows – on which abrasion about 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm with dark brown scab wound." Exhibit P-8 is the Accident Register issued by him. P.W.17-Dr.Veeranarayanan examined P.W.4-Devendiran at about 6.30 p.m. on 112. 2002 and noted the following injuries: "(1) Lacerated wound about 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm over the scalp Occipital area / dark colour scab around the wound. (2) Contusion about 3 cm x 2 cm over the right leg -front – dark colour. (3) Contusion about 2 cm x 1 ½ cm over the right hand thumb – dorsum – dark red colour." He also issued Exhibit P-10-Accident Register. P.W.28-Inspector Jayapal, who was in search of the accused, arrested both the Accused No. 1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi and Accused No. 2-Sakila on 112. 2002 itself at 8.15 p.m. at Vadavaru near Echampoondi village and recorded the confession statement given by A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi in the presence of P.W.18-Gunasekaran and Another. Exhibit P-11 is the admissible portion of it. In pursuance of the confession, he recovered M.O.1-Crowbar and M.O.2-Aruval from a bush near the bridge under Exhibit P-12-mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were brought to the Police Station. Exhibit P-11 is the admissible portion of it. In pursuance of the confession, he recovered M.O.1-Crowbar and M.O.2-Aruval from a bush near the bridge under Exhibit P-12-mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were brought to the Police Station. A.1 -Sulian alias Chinnathambi gave a complaint and case was registered 11 pm in Crime No. 624 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 IPC 2nd both the accused were sent to Chidambaram Government Hospital through Police memo. As the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were admitted as in-patient in the hospital, requisition was given to the Magistrate to remand them. P.W.29-Inspector Sankaran took up the further investigation and he investigated the case in both the crime numbers. On 112. 2002, he examined P.W.16- Dr.Natarajan and Others. On 112. 2002, he arrested A.3-Madhiazhagan at 6.30 a.m. near bridge at Kollidam Railway Colony, and subjected him to judicial remand. On 112. 2002, he examined P.W.17- Dr.Veeranarayanan and recorded his statement. On completion of the investigation, he filed final report on 25. 2003 against the accused. 3. To prove the case, the prosecution-examined P.Ws. 1 to 29; marked Exhibits P-1 to P-16 and produced M.O A. to 5. 4. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity. A.1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi has stated that he and his wife were in the house and P.Ws.2 to entered the house and cut his hand with Aruval and P.W.4-Devendiran cut him with Aruval on his right side of the head and they also beat on his left leg. A.2-Sakila also has stated that P.W.3-Thangasamy pulled her holding the hair and P.W.2-Thlagarajan kicked her on chest and cut on her leg with Aruval and P.W.4-Devendiran beat her with a crowbar. P.W.2-Thlagarajan again attempted to attack her on head and one Kannan prevented it. A.3-Madhiazhagan has stated that he was not connected with the occurrence and he was not present at the scene of occurrence and he was sitting on the sledge. D.W.1-Dr.Santhi was examined and Exhibits D-1 and D-2 Accident Registers in respect of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were marked on the side of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced all the three accused, as stated above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. D.W.1-Dr.Santhi was examined and Exhibits D-1 and D-2 Accident Registers in respect of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were marked on the side of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced all the three accused, as stated above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Anthony Jesus submitted that the prosecution has not come out with the true version with regard to the occurrence and the very genesis of the prosecution case is highly doubtful. The accused 1 and 2 have sustained injuries and the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused P.Ws. 1 to 8 are the relatives of the deceased and they are interested witness. The learned counsel further submitted that though counter complaint was registered on the basis ofthe complaint given by the first accused, the prosecution has not placed those materials. Even the accident registers in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been marked by the defence as Exhibits D-1 and D-2 by examining the Doctor D.W.I. The learned counsel forthe appellant has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Baba Ram and Others v. State of Punjab (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1369 (SC). 7. Per contra, the learned prosecutor submitted that P.Ws. 1 to 8 are the eye witness to the occurrence and among them, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the injured witnesses. Their evidence is consistent with regard to the occurrence. The injury sustained by the accused are not serious injuries. The investigating Officer also registered a case in Crime No. 624 of 2004 for the offences under Section 324 and 323 IPC and after Investigation, it has been referred and referred notice was also served to the first accused. The learned prosecutor further submitted that as the evidence of injured eye-witnesses are credible, the non explanation of the injury on the accused cannot be a ground for rejecting the prosecution case and he also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Krishnan v. State of Haryana (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 214. 8. This Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the records carefully. According to the prosecution case, there was a dispute between P.W.1 family and the accused family. Admittedly on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between P.W.I and the second accused. 8. This Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the records carefully. According to the prosecution case, there was a dispute between P.W.1 family and the accused family. Admittedly on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between P.W.I and the second accused. There had been exchange of words between them. According to the witnesses to the occurrence, it was only the first and second accused attacked the deceased with crowbar and brick. The first accused also attacked P. W.3, third accused attacked P.Ws.2 and 4 with aruval. All the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 8 as a parrot like repetition spoken about the occurrence attributing overt act to the accused. But none of the witness had spoken about the injuries sustained by the accused 1 and 2. Even Exhibit P-1 complaint given by P.W. 1, nothing is stated about the accused being injured. Ac-cording to the prosecution case, after the arrest of the accused 1 and 2, the complaint was received from the first accused and the case was registered in Crime No. 624`of 2002 and both the accused were sent to the hospital and they were admitted as inpatient. In spite of that, the prosecution has not placed before the Court the complaint given by the first accused. It is only on the defence side, D.W.I, the Doctor who treated A. 1 and A.2 was examined and the accident registers are marked as Exhibits D-I and D-2 in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. D.W.I Doctor had noted the following Injuries on the first accused and issued Exhibit D-I: "Alleged to have been assaulted by five known persons on 12. 2002 at 7.30 p.m at his residence by means of “TAMIL” 1. A cut injury 2cmx 1 cmx 1/2 cm over the right forearm below the elbow dried blood present. 2. A cut injury 5 x 1 x 1/2s cm over the light parietal region of scalp dried blood present. 3. Contusion 4 x 3 cm above the right knee 4. Contusion 3 x 2 cm above the outer aspect or left thigh. 5. Contusion 3 x 2cm over the left gluteal region injuries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are simple nature" Treated as Inpatient." D.W.1 Doctor had noted the following in-juries on the second accused and issued Exhibit D-2: "Alleged to have assaulted by five known persons on 12. Contusion 3 x 2 cm above the outer aspect or left thigh. 5. Contusion 3 x 2cm over the left gluteal region injuries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are simple nature" Treated as Inpatient." D.W.1 Doctor had noted the following in-juries on the second accused and issued Exhibit D-2: "Alleged to have assaulted by five known persons on 12. 2002 at 7.30 p.m., at her residence by means of "TAMIL” 1) A cut injury 6x4x2cm in front of right thigh lower c/3(?) shape covering the wound. 2) Contusion 4 x 3 cm over the left gluteal region. 3) A lacerated wound 4 x 1 x 1/2 cm over the right parietal region of scalp dried blood present. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 are simple in nature. Treated as IP" 9. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused sustained injuries at different occurrence. The time of occurrence mentioned in the accident registers relating to the prosecution witnesses and also accident registers relating to the accused 1 and 2 are one and the same, i.e., on 12. 2005 at 7.30 p.m. 10. In the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Babu Ram and Another v, State of Punjab (supra), it has been observed in paragraphs 18 and 19 as follows at p. 1374 of MLJ (Crl): "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 : (1976) 4 SCC 394 : (1976) SCC(Cr) 671 19. (See Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263 : (1976) 4 SCC 394 : (1976) SCC(Cr) 671 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 Paragraph-32 as follows: "32. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman 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 nor minor therefore, non explanation of serious injuries In the instant case doubts the very genesis of the prosecution version." 11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, this case has to be considered. All three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely related to each other and the deceased. It is well settled that the eye-witnesses of close relatives cannot be discredited, provided their evidence is cogent, consistent and trustworthy and stands close scrutiny. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, this case has to be considered. All three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are closely related to each other and the deceased. It is well settled that the eye-witnesses of close relatives cannot be discredited, provided their evidence is cogent, consistent and trustworthy and stands close scrutiny. In the instant case, though a case was registered in Crime No. 624 of 2002, on the basis of the complaint given by the first accused. The prosecution has not placed all the records including the complaint. When a case and counter has arisen in the course of same transaction, it is the duty of the prosecution to place the records relating to both the cases and further duty is caused upon the prosecution to point out dearly the genesis of the occurrence, and thereby, enabling the Court to find out the truth and fix the aggressors. Further, out of five injuries sustained by the first accused, two of the injuries are cut injuries, one on the right fore arm and another on the right skeletal region on the skull. Out of the three injuries sustained by the second accused, one is the cut injury over the right thigh and another one lacerated wound over the right parietal region of scar. Though the injuries are described as simple injuries by the Doctors, having sustained injury on the skull, it cannot be termed only as minor and superficial injuries. In view of the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused and also due to failure on the part of the prosecution by not placing all the records pertaining to the counter case, this Court is to draw the inference that the prosecution has not presented the true version and the origin ofthe occurrence is not established and the eye-witnesses have deliberately suppressed the part of the transaction in which the accused are injured. In the said circumstance, it is very unsafe to convict the accused placing reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction an sentence imposed 6r the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2003 on the file Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram are set aside and the appellants/accused Nos. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction an sentence imposed 6r the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2003 on the file Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram are set aside and the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of all the charges and the fine amount paid, if any, is to be refunded to them. The Bail bond executed by accused No.2-Sakila shall stand cancelled. The appellant No. 1/ accused No. 1-Sulian alias Chinnathambi is directed to be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case.