Judgment : K.N. BASHA, J. 1. In Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2002, A3 to A6 are the appellants. In Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2002, A2 and A7 are the appellants. In Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2002, A1 is the appellant. In all these appeals, the appellants challenged their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, by the judgment dated 8.3.2002 made in S.C. No. 3 of 1996, convicting A1 under Section 148 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years RI, convicting A2 to A7 under Section 147 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo two years RI, convicting A1 under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo two years RI, convicting A2 to A7 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to undergo two years RI, convicting A2, A4 and A5 under Section 324 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo two years RI and also convicting A3 to A7 under Section 336 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo three months RI. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A4 died on 31.5.2009. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also produce the death certificate to that effect. The perusal of the death certificate discloses that A4 viz., Chellan S/o. Rasalaiayn died on 31.5.2009. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2002 in respect of the second appellant/A4 is abated. 3. The background facts of the case an unfolded through the evidence adduced by the prosecution are hereunder: a) P.Ws.1 to 3 are the brothers of the deceased Selvaraj. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the cousins of the deceased. A1, A2 and A4 are brothers. A6 is the wife of A2. The prosecution party is residing at Andoor Poombattai Village. P.W.1 was doing a business in coconut leaves. P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased used to purchase the coconut leaves from the Village Andoor Mukkalampad and they used to send the same to the other places. P.W.14 used to take the said coconut leaves to other places. The prosecution party is residing at Andoor Poombattai Village. P.W.1 was doing a business in coconut leaves. P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased used to purchase the coconut leaves from the Village Andoor Mukkalampad and they used to send the same to the other places. P.W.14 used to take the said coconut leaves to other places. On 16.6.1994 P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased took the coconut leaves in the tempo of one Issack through Mukkalampad Road and at that time the said tempo dashed against the electric post resulting in damage to the same. Due to the said damage, there was no electricity supply for two days in the village of Andoor Mukkalampad. A1 and the other accused questioned the same and stated that no vehicle should be brought to Mukkalampad. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased were not in a position to continue their business in coconut leaves for some days which resulted in damage to the coconut leaves causing loss to several thousands. Therefore, there was a wordy quarrel between P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased on the one side and A1 and others on the other side. The prosecution party has given a report to the Thiruvattar Police Station. As a result, A1 and A2 told then that P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased should not do the business in coconut leaves and they would not allow them to do such business. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the prosecution parties and the accused. b) On the fateful rfay of the occurrence i.e., on 21.7.1994 at 8.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 to 5 and the deceased went to Mukkalampad for cutting coconut leaves and at that time A1 armed with spade, A2 armed with casuarina stick and A3 to A7 came to that place. A2 told the deceased that they should not go to that place for cutting coconut leaves and the deceased party would not be allowed to do the business in coconut leaves at Mukkalampad Village, which resulted in a wordy quarrel between both the parties. A1 with the stick portion of the spade beat the deceased twice. The deceased raised hue and cry and fell down. A1 kicked him on his stomach and also beat on his head with the stick portion of spade. P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed to the scene and shouted not to attack the deceased. A1 with the stick portion of the spade beat the deceased twice. The deceased raised hue and cry and fell down. A1 kicked him on his stomach and also beat on his head with the stick portion of spade. P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed to the scene and shouted not to attack the deceased. At that time A2 beat P.W.1 on his forehead twice with a stick. P.W.1 was armed with a knife for cutting coconut leaves and as such A2, while attacking P.W.1, sustained an injury on his hand. A2 to A7 pelted stones on the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 which resulted injuries to P.Ws.1 to 3. A6 pelted a stone on the deceased. A7 beat the deceased with a stone on his left shoulder. Stones pelted by A2 to A6 caused injuries to P.Ws.3 to 5. A2 and A3 also assaulted P.Ws.4 and 5 with their hands. There was a scuffle between the prosecution party and A2 to A4 and one Issakkivel came to the spot shouting as not to attack the prosecution party. All the accused ran away from the scene along with the weapons. Some other persons including one Rajkumar and Mohan @ Thangamani witnessed the occurrence. One Rajkumar was directed to fetch a car for taking the deceased to hospital and he brought a car from Kulasekaram. The deceased was taken into the said car along with the other injured witnesses to the hospital. c) P.W.11, attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil, examined P.W.1 on 21.7.1994 at 10.40 a.m. He found the following injuries: “1. Lacerated injury on the left forehead (hair lobe) 3 cm x 1 cm bone depth. 2. Abrasion in left side index finger. 3. Abrasion in left aide chest measuring 3 cm x 3 cm.” Exhibit P-10 is the accident register. d) On the same day at 10.45 a.m, Doctor, P.W.11 examined P.W.2. He found the following injuries: “1. Lacerated injury in the occipital region measuring 3 cm x 1 cm bone depth. 2. Lacerated injury in (R) leg measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm 3. Abrasion in left leg 2 cm x 1 cm.” Exhibit P-11 is the accident register. e) On the same day at 10.55 a.m., Doctor, P.W.11 has examined P.W.3. He found the following Injuries: “1. Abrasion in left chest measuring 6 cm x 1 cm. 2. Lacerated injury in (R) leg measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm 3. Abrasion in left leg 2 cm x 1 cm.” Exhibit P-11 is the accident register. e) On the same day at 10.55 a.m., Doctor, P.W.11 has examined P.W.3. He found the following Injuries: “1. Abrasion in left chest measuring 6 cm x 1 cm. 2. Abrasion in right side shoulder measuring 1 cm x 1 cm. 3. Abrasion right loin measuring 3 cm x 1 cm. 4. Abrasion in the left shoulder ” Exhibit P-12 is the accident register. f) On the same day at 10.40 a.m., Doctor, P.W.11 examined P.W.4. He found the following injuries: “1. Pain and tender in the chest 2. Abrasion measuring 3 cm x 1 cm in the inner aspect of Left thigh. ” Exhibit P-13 is the accident register. g) Doctor, P.W.11 examined P.W.5 on the same day at 10.35 a.m. He has not found any external injury. Exhibit P-14 is the accident register. h) On the same day at 10.20 a.m., Doctor, P.W.11 has examined the deceased and found the following Injuries: “1. Diffuse swelling on the left side parietal measuring 10 cm x 8 cm. 2. A lacerated injury on the right side parietal region measuring 4 cm x 1 cm. 3. Abrasion on the right thigh 4. Abrasion over the right axilla measuring 5 cm x 3 cm. 5. Abrasion over the right knee measuring 2 cm x 2cm. 6. Abrasion over the back of left shoulder measuring 3 cm x 2 cm.” Exhibit P-15 is the accident register. i) On the same day at 11.00 a.m. Doctor, P.W.11 examined A2. He found seven injuries on him. The first injury is a star shaped lacerated wound on the head. The second injury is on the right hand thumb finger which was severed and bone were protruding. Exhibit P-16 is the accident register issued in respect of A2. j) On the same day at 11.20 a.m. he has examined A3. He found the following injuries: “1. Abrasion in the forearm on the back measuring 5 cm x 2 cm 2. Contusion in the right temporal region measuring 4 cm x 2 cm 3. Contusion in the right hand measuring 4 cm x 2 cm 4. Diffused swelling on the left calf muscular region measuring 10 cm x x 2 cm 5. Abrasion in the forearm on the back measuring 5 cm x 2 cm 2. Contusion in the right temporal region measuring 4 cm x 2 cm 3. Contusion in the right hand measuring 4 cm x 2 cm 4. Diffused swelling on the left calf muscular region measuring 10 cm x x 2 cm 5. Abrasion in left loin measuring 5 cm x 1 cm.” Exhibit P-17 is the accident register. A swelling was found on the head of A3, apart from the other injuries. k) On the same day at 11.10 a.m., he has examined A4. He found the following injuries: “1. Diffused swelling in the upper arm measuring 10 cm x 6 cm. 2. Abrasion on the scapular region left measuring 4 cm x 3 cm. 3. Pain and tender of the right side chest. ” Exhibit P-18 is the accident register. l) P.W.15, Head Constable, attached to Kottar Police Station, on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospital, Kottar went to the said hospital on 21.7.1994 at 11.30 a.m. and recorded the statement Exhibit P-1 from P.W.1. At the same hospital, he has also recorded, a report Exhibit P-23 from A2. P.W.15 returned to the Police Station at 1.45 p.m. and informed Thiruvattar Police Station through wireless message as the occurrence took place within the said Police Station jurisdiction. On the same day, at 3.00 p.m. the Head Constable attached to the Thiruvattar Police Station came to Kottar Police Station and received Exhibit P-1 and Exhibits P-21 to P-23. m) P.W.16, Head Constable, attached to Thiruvattar Police Station, on receipt of FIR from P.W.15 returned back to Thiruvattar Police Station and registered the case in Crime No. 448 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 147, 148 , 324, 336, 323 and 307 IPC. Exhibit P-24 is the FIR. P.W.16 also registered a case in Crime No. 449 of 1994 on the basis of the complaint, Exhibit P-23 given by A2 for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. Exhibit P-25 is the FIR. He sent the FIR to the higher police officials and to the Court. P.W.16 on the same day received death Intimation Exhibit P 5. Thereafter, he has altered offence under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-26 is the altered FIR. He sent the same to the Court and to the higher police officials. n) P.W.19, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. P.W.16 on the same day received death Intimation Exhibit P 5. Thereafter, he has altered offence under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-26 is the altered FIR. He sent the same to the Court and to the higher police officials. n) P.W.19, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. On 21.7.1994 at 6.00 p.m. he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, Exhibit P-27 and rough sketch, Exhibit P26 in the presences of the witnesses. He has recovered black stones M.O.5 series from the scene under Exhibit P-4. On 21.7.1994 at 9.00 p.m. he has examined P.W.1 at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil. He also recovered bloodstained lunki and towel, M.Os.1 and 2 from P.W.1 presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. On the same day, at 10.00 p.m. he has examined P.Ws.2 and 3. He also recovered M.Os.3 and 4, lunki and towel of P.W.2 under Exhibit P-3. He has examined P.Ws.6 and 7 on 22.7.1994. He has examined A2 in respect of Crime No. 449 of 1994. On 22.7.1994 from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., he held inquest on the dead body. Exhibit P-29 is the inquest report. He sent the body for postmortem through Constable. o) Doctor, P.W.12 attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, as per requisition Exhibit P-19, at 11.30 a.m. on 22.7.1994. He found the following injuries. “External injuries: 1) A diffused swelling 10 cm x 8 cm left parietal region. 2) A sutured wound over right parietal region length 4 cm. 3) An abrasion right thigh measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. 4) An abrasion in the right inter maxillary area size 5 cm x 3 cm. 5) An abrasion over the right knee of size 2 cm x 2 cm. 6) An abrasion on the back of the left shoulder size 3 cm x 2 cm.” He is of the opinion that the death would appear to have occurred about 19-21 hours prior to postmortem and the deceased appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. ” Exhibit P-20 is the postmortem certificate. p) P.W.19, in continuation of his investigation on 22.7.1994 at 2.00 p.m. has arrested A6. On 23.7.1994 at 8.30 a.m. he has arrested A2 to A4 while they were taking treatment as inpatient at the Government Headquarters Hospital and produced them before the Court for remand. ” Exhibit P-20 is the postmortem certificate. p) P.W.19, in continuation of his investigation on 22.7.1994 at 2.00 p.m. has arrested A6. On 23.7.1994 at 8.30 a.m. he has arrested A2 to A4 while they were taking treatment as inpatient at the Government Headquarters Hospital and produced them before the Court for remand. q) P.W.20, another Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He has examined P.Ws.8, 4, 5, 14, 9 and others. He has also conducted investigation in respect of the Crime No. 449 of 1994. He has received the postmortem certificate Exhibit P-20 and on completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 18.5.1995 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 336, 307 and 302 read with 34 IPC. In respect of the Crime No. 449 of 1994 registered on the basis of the complaint given by A2, he has filed final report Exhibit P-30 referring the case as mistake of fact. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 20, filed Exhibits P-1 to P-30 and marked M.Os.1 to 7. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against each of them, all the accused have denied each, and every circumstance as contrary to the facts and they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. A1 stated that he was not at all present at the scene of occurrence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused have examined D.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exhibits D-1 to D-7 on their side. 6.0. Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel appearing for A1, Mr. S. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for A2 and A3, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned senior counsel appearing for A4 to A6 and Mr. Ramu, learned counsel appearing for A7 vehemently Contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. 6.1. 6.0. Mr. P.H. Pandian, learned senior counsel appearing for A1, Mr. S. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for A2 and A3, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned senior counsel appearing for A4 to A6 and Mr. Ramu, learned counsel appearing for A7 vehemently Contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. 6.1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/accused pointed out that there is an inordinate delay in registering FIR as well as despatching the same to the Court as the occurrence said to have taken place at 8.00 a.m., whereas FIR was registered only at 4.15 p.m. and the same reached the Magistrate Court at 8.30 p.m. and for such delay there is no explanation on the side of the prosecution. It is contended that the delay in registering FIR assumes importance, in view of the other infirmities and inconsistencies found in the prosecution case. 6.2. The learned senior counsel for the accused would proceed to contend that A2 to A4 also sustained injuries and among them A2 sustained grievous injury and one of the injury is on the vital part viz., on his head and his right hand finger was also completely severed, but there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the prosecution. It is pointed out that though P.W.1 made a feeble attempt to explain the injury sustained by A2, he has merely stated that he was also armed with weapon viz., knife far cutting coconut leaves and while A2 attacking him, he has sustained an injury on his hand and even the said explanation is false as A2 sustained as many as seven injuries. The learned senior counsel would further contend that as far as the other injured eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to 5 are concerned, they have not whispered a word about the injuries sustained by A2 to A4. 6.3. The learned senior counsel appearing for A1, apart from other submissions as stated above, also contended that A1 ‘s presence at the scene itself is highly doubtful as he has not sustained any injury and if he was really present at the scene, he could not have been spared by the prosecution party in view of the injuries sustained by A2 to A4. 6.4. 6.4. The learned senior counsel would further contend that though A2 also preferred a complaint, Exhibit P-23, the same was not properly investigated by the investigating officer, P.W.20, inspite of his admission that both the occurrence took place one and the same place and the said case is the case in counter. It is contended that the investigating officers have not followed the procedures contemplated in respect of the investigation in a case in counter. 6.5. The learned senior counsel would also point out that admittedly even as per the version of P.W.19, A2 sustained injuries and P.W.19, first investigating officer has categorically admitted that he has not perused even the accident register issued in respect of A2. It is also contended that A2 to A4 have been arrested while they were taking treatment at the Government Hospital. Therefore, it is, vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel that the non explanation of the injuries, sustained by three accused viz., A2 to A4 would amount to suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence and it demonstrates that the prosecution has not come forward with true version. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has come forward with the clear and cogent evidence, through P.Ws.1 to 5. It is submitted that eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 have also injured at the time of occurrence and their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence through Doctors, P.Ws.11 and 12, who have found corresponding injury on the deceased and other injured witnesses. It is contended that a case was registered on the basis of the complaint given by A2 in Crime No. 449 of 2004 and after proper investigation, the same was referred to as mistake of fact, as per the evidence of P.W.20, investigating officer. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that though certain infirmities and inconsistencies pointed out by the defence, the same not affected the main case of the prosecution. 8. We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 9. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 5. The said eyewitnesses are also injured witnesses, the fact remains that P.Ws.1 to 5 are closely related to the deceased. 9. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 5. The said eyewitnesses are also injured witnesses, the fact remains that P.Ws.1 to 5 are closely related to the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the brothers of the deceased. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the cousins of the deceased and as such they are the interested witnesses and therefore, we have to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 10. At the outset, it is to be stated that the prosecution has chosen to examine only P.Ws.1 to 5 as eyewitnesses, who are closely related to the deceased, inspite of the availability of other eyewitnesses. It is seen that P.W.1 has stated even in his chief examination that certain other persons also witnessed the occurrence, more particularly one Rajkumar and one Mohan @ Thangamani were present at the time of occurrence, but the said independent eyewitnesses have been withheld by the prosecution and absolutely there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for such non-examination of the Independent witnesses and as such we have no hesitation to draw adverse inference against the prosecution case. 11. The yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case is that there is inordinate delay in registering FIR as well as in despatching the same to the Magistrate Court. It is claimed by the prosecution that after occurrence all the injured have been taken to the Hospital along with the deceaaed and only after the intimation sent from the hospital, P.W.15, Head Constable of Kottar Police Station came there and recorded the statement from P.W.1 at 11.30 a.m. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 has taken pain to request one Rajkumar to fetch a taxi for taking the injured and the deceased to the hospital. It is seen that he has not sustained any serious injuries and nothing prevented him to go to the Police Station and to give a report. The fact remains that the jurisdiction police viz., Thiruvattar Police Station is only seven Kilometers away from the scene of occurrence, but he has not chosen to go to the Police Station to give a report immediately. The fact remains that the jurisdiction police viz., Thiruvattar Police Station is only seven Kilometers away from the scene of occurrence, but he has not chosen to go to the Police Station to give a report immediately. The other eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to 5 have been mainly claimed to have sustained certain simple injuries only due to pelting stones and inspite of the same, they have also not raised their little finger to go to the Police Station and to give a report. 12. Added to all these infirmities, it is also relevant to note that the prosecution claimed that on receipt of the intimation from Kottar Police Station, P.W.15 came to the Hospital and recorded the statement Exhibit P-1 from P.W.1 at 11.30 a.m. and thereafter, he has sent a message to the jurisdiction police viz., Thiruvattar Police Station and thereafter, P.W.16 came and received the said report Exhibit P-1 and he went back to the Thiruvattar Police Station and registered the case only at 4.15 p.m. andsent the same to the Court at 8.00 p.m. We are of the view that such version of explanation of the prosecution is unacceptable as the police could not have taken such a long time to register the FIR. It is also seen that the prosecution also made further delay in FIR despatching to the Magistrate Court as the same reached the Magistrate Court only at 8.00 p.m. We are of the view that the inordinate delay in registering FIR and despatching FIR assumes greater importance in the instant case, in view of other serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities. 13. The yet another serious infirmity in the prosecution case is the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A2 to A4 at the time of occurrence. It is pertinent to note that P.W.19 admitted in his cross-examination that both the occurrence have taken place one and the same place. It is admitted by P.W.19 that A2 has sustained seven injuries. P.W.19 has merely stated that he has not perused the accident register issued in respect of A2. At this juncture, we are also constrained to point out that the investigating officers, P.Ws.19 and 20 have not followed the procedure contemplated for investigating into a case in counter. Among the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 5, P.Ws.2 to 5 have not whispered a word about the injuries sustained by any one of the accused. At this juncture, we are also constrained to point out that the investigating officers, P.Ws.19 and 20 have not followed the procedure contemplated for investigating into a case in counter. Among the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 5, P.Ws.2 to 5 have not whispered a word about the injuries sustained by any one of the accused. P.W.1 has made a feeble attempt to explain the injuries sustained by A2 to the effect that he was also armed with a knife as he was using the same for cutting coconut leaves and while A2 was attacking him, he had sustained an injury on his hand. The perusal of the evidence of Doctor P.W.11 as well as the perusal of the accident register issued in respect of A2 under Exhibit P-16 reveals that A2 has sustained seven injuries and among them, the first injury is a star shaped lacerated injury found on his head. It is seen that the second injury was an injury severed his right hand thumb. Doctor, P.W.11 has opined that A2 has sustained grievous injury. Therefore, it is crystal clear that even P.W.1 has not come forward with any acceptable and probable explanation for the injuries sustained by A2. P.W.1 is also silent about the injuries sustained by the other accused viz., A3 and A4. Therefore, at the risk of repetition, we reiterate that there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever forthcoming for the injuries sustained by A2 to A4. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a landmark judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in respect of the effect of non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the prosecution. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 671: LNIND 1976 SC 324held as hereunder: “11. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a landmark judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in respect of the effect of non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the prosecution. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 671: LNIND 1976 SC 324held as hereunder: “11. 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. 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.” (emphasis added) 15. The principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the prosecution has not at all explained the injuries sustained by A2 to A4 and A2 has sustained grievous injuries and the accused viz., A2 and A3 have sustained injuries on the vital part of their body viz., on their head. In the instant case also the prosecution has chosen to place reliance only on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, who are closely related to the deceased and apart from that, they are also having grudge and animosity against the accused as the accused objected for coming to their village for cutting coconut leaves as they have caused damage to the electricity post. Therefore, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A2 to A4 makes it crystal clear that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and the prosecution has not come forward with a true version. 16. Therefore, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A2 to A4 makes it crystal clear that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and the prosecution has not come forward with a true version. 16. We are also not able to find any other incriminating materials or circumstances available against the accused in this case. The prosecution has not made any recovery of weapons viz., spade said to have been used by A1 and casusrine stick said to have been used by A2. It is seen that the prosecution claimed that they have only seized certain black stones, M.O.5 series from the scene of occurrence. We are of the considered view that the same are not at all helpful to advance the case of the prosecution as the said stones would be available in any open place. 17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable and accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil by the judgment dated 8.3.2002 made in S.C. No. 3 of 1996 are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them in this case. Fine amounts paid by the appellants, if any, are directed to be refunded. Bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused shall stand terminated.