Judgment :- 1. The appellants, who have been arrayed as A1 to A3, have come forward with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, by the judgment dated 21.06.2010 made in S.C.No.57 of 2009 convicting A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 341 IPC and sentencing each of them for one month simple imprisonment, convicting A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as here under : (a) This is a case of double murder. For the sake of convenience, the deceased persons, viz., the first deceased Sivakumar is referred as D1 and the second deceased Manoharan is referred as D2. (b) P.W.1 is the co-brother of D1. P.W.4 is the wife of D1. P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.4. A1 is the son of A2 and A3. The deceased-accused Mahendran is also son of A2 and A3 and brother of A1. (c) There was a dispute in respect of cutting trees from the four acres of land situated in Sarkaraikinaru village between D1, D2, Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2 on one side and A1 to A3 and the deceased-accused on the other side. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the prosecution party and the accused party. (d) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 17.04.2008, P.W.1, who was the village Assistant and residing at Arulatchi village, has come to Kilaputhur village for the purpose of informing D1, D2 and their grandfather about the puberty function of his daughter to be held on 20.04.2008. P.W.1 reached the house of the said Pakkirisamy at 6.00 a.m. on that day and informed Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2 and also D1 and D2. Thereafter, he was standing along with his brother-in-law/P.W.5 at Kilaputhur North Street. At about 7.00 a.m., D1 and D2 and their grandfather Pakkirisamy, P.W.4 were coming from West to Eastern side. D2 was armed with an aruval in his hand. When they came in front of the house of A2, A1, the deceased-accused Mahendran, A2 and A3 intercepted D1 and D2. At about 7.00 a.m., D1 and D2 and their grandfather Pakkirisamy, P.W.4 were coming from West to Eastern side. D2 was armed with an aruval in his hand. When they came in front of the house of A2, A1, the deceased-accused Mahendran, A2 and A3 intercepted D1 and D2. A1, A2 and the deceased-accused Mahendran were armed with aruvals and A3 was armed with a knife. A3 instigated her sons A1 and the deceased-accused Mahendran to attack D1 and D2. A1, with an aruval, cut D1 on his neck. D1 fell down and A1 again attacked D1 on his jaw, neck and on his nose repeatedly. A2 cut D1 on his shoulder, hip, right hand, right wrist repeatedly. The deceased-accused Mahendran cut D2 with an aruval on his shoulder and the deceased-accused cut repeatedly on the other parts of the body of D2. A3 with a knife cut D2 on his stomach, left side and right side of the chest. In the same occurrence, D2 attacked the deceased-accused Mahendran with an aruval. Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2, and P.W.4/wife of D1, raised hue and cry. On hearing the same, P.Ws.1 and 5 rushed to the spot and found D1 and D2 and Mahendran lying in a pool of blood. A1, A2 and A3 threatened them with dire consequences that if they come nearer to them and ran away from the scene. Thereafter, P.W.4 accompanied with Pakkirisamy went to Puliyangudi Police Station to give the report. (e) P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police, recorded the statement from Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2 at 9.30 a.m. on 17.04.2008 under Ex.P.1. P.W.1 attested the same. P.W.13 registered the case in Crime No.147 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506 (ii) IPC. Ex.P.13 is the First Information Report. He sent the same to the Court and to the higher police officials. (f) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, received the First Information Report on 17.04.2008. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.5 and rough sketch, Ex.P.18 in the presence of witnesses. He held inquest in respect of D1. He seized the bloodstained earth/M.O.4 and sample earth/M.O.5 from the scene. He sent the body of D1 for post-moretm. He has examined Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2, P.W.4 and P.W.1. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.5 and rough sketch, Ex.P.18 in the presence of witnesses. He held inquest in respect of D1. He seized the bloodstained earth/M.O.4 and sample earth/M.O.5 from the scene. He sent the body of D1 for post-moretm. He has examined Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2, P.W.4 and P.W.1. (g) P.W.14, Inspector of Police, held inquest on the body of D2 from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 17.04.2008. Ex.P.14 is the inquest report. During inquest, he has examined one Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2, P.Ws.1 and 4 and others. (h) The Doctor, P.W.2 conducted post-mortem in respect of D2. He found the following injuries : 1. A cut injury of 8 xm X 5 cm X 1.5 cm bone deep was found near left eye on the face. On dissection, no fracture was found. 2. A cut injury of 10 cm X 4 cm bone deep was found on the lower chin. On dissection, 8 cm fracture of bone (mandible) was found. 3. A cut injury on the neck 3 cm below the right ear measuring 12 cm X 3 cm X 6 cm. On dissection of the said injury, carotid blood vessel and other blood vessels and carnal were found cut. 4. A deep incised wound 3 cms below the third injury measuring 10 cm X 4 cm X 6 cm protruding bronchial tubes. 5. A deep incised wound 10 cm X 3 cm X 6 cm cutting carotid and other blood vessels and nearby carnal 3 cm below the left ear. 6. An incised wound 2.5 cm below the injury no.5 measuring 8 cm X 2 cm X 6 cm upto the front portion of the neck cutting carnal and bloodvessels. 7. A stab injury 5 cm X 1 cm X 7 cm on the right clavicle. 8. A stab injury 4 cm X 3 cm X 6 cm on the left clavicle. 9. A stab injury 3 cm X 1 cm X 5 cm near injury no.8. 10. A cut injury 4 cm X 1.5 cm X 2 cm on the lateral end of left clavicle. 11. A stab injury 5 cm X 3 cm X 6 cm below injury no.10. 12. A stab injury 6 cm X 4 cm X 6 cm below injury no.11. 13. 10. A cut injury 4 cm X 1.5 cm X 2 cm on the lateral end of left clavicle. 11. A stab injury 5 cm X 3 cm X 6 cm below injury no.10. 12. A stab injury 6 cm X 4 cm X 6 cm below injury no.11. 13. A stab injury of 4 cm X 1 cm X 5 cm near injury No.12. 14. An incised wound of 8 cm X 3 cm X 7 cm was found 4 cm above the left nipple. 15. Abrasion measuring 8 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm was found on the middle of the chest. 16. Abrasion of 4 cm X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm above the 15th injury on the chest. On dissection of injuries 7 to 16, no fracture or damages found. 17. A stab injury 2 cm X 1.5 cm above navel on the stomach. 18. A stab injury of 2.5 cm X 1 cm found on the stomach above injury no.17. 19. A stab injury of 2 cm X 1 cm X 3 cm on the abdomen. 20. A cut injury of 3 cm X 1.5 cm X 1cm on the right arm. 21. A cut injury of 3 cm X 1.5 cm X 1 cm on the right forearm. 22. A cut injury of 8 cm X 4 cm X 3 cm on the right wrist. 23. A cut injury of 4 cm X 1.5 cm X 1 cm on the backside of the head near left ear. 24. A bone deep incised wound on the occipital region 8 cm X 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm. 25. A cut injury of 12 cm X 1.5 cm X 2 cm found on the back left side of the neck. Ex.P.2 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries 3 to 6 sustained 8-12 hours prior to autopsy. (i) The Doctor, P.W.3, conducted post-mortem in respect of D1. He found the following injuries : 1. A cut injury of length 12 cm present transversely in the scalp, 08 cm above the forehead. Both parietal bones fractured to the same dimension underlying brain parenchyma is not injured. No blood clot seen. 2. (i) The Doctor, P.W.3, conducted post-mortem in respect of D1. He found the following injuries : 1. A cut injury of length 12 cm present transversely in the scalp, 08 cm above the forehead. Both parietal bones fractured to the same dimension underlying brain parenchyma is not injured. No blood clot seen. 2. A 2 cm X 2 cm contusion over right forehead, underlying right frontal bone is depressed to the same dimension. Underlying brain parenchyma not injured. No blood clot seen. 3. A cut injury of length 5 cm which is oblique above downwards present across the bridge of the nose fracturing the nasal septum. 4. A cut injury of length 17 cm which is extending from 3 cm lateral to the left angle of mouth, running across the ear lobule of left ear upto the nape of neck. It slopes above downwards underlying fascia and vessels are exposed. 5. A cut injury of length 15 cm, 2 cm below the left ear extending from 3 cm behind the ear to the chin. Depth 3 cm. Underlying muscles and vessels injured. Oblique in direction. 6. A cut injury of length 12 cm in the (Left side) neck, 5 cm below injury No.(5). Depth 2 cm. Direction is oblique. 7. A cut injury of length 20 cm extending across the entire front of neck, 3 cm below injury No.(6). Underlying trachea and esophagus cut through and through exposing underlying of vertebra. No bone injury. 8. A cut injury in the right side and front of neck which is torn long and in 5 cm above the right clavicle. Depth 5 cm. Oblique in direction. Underlying muscles and blood vessels injured. 9. A cut injury of length 5 cm above the left clavicle fracturing the medial end of clavicle. Depth 2 cm. Oblique in direction. 10. A cut injury of length 3 cm located 3 cm below the right shoulder. It is oblique in direction and 2 cm deep. 11. A cut injury of length 8 cm, located 4 cm below the right elbow on the inner aspect of right forearm. Underlying muscles and vessels cut. No bone injury. 12. A cut injury of length 2 cm in left chest, 10 cm below the lateral end of clavicle. Depth 2 cm. Thorax: No fracture of ribs or Sternum. Heart and Lungs pale. Abdomen: Stomach empty. Underlying muscles and vessels cut. No bone injury. 12. A cut injury of length 2 cm in left chest, 10 cm below the lateral end of clavicle. Depth 2 cm. Thorax: No fracture of ribs or Sternum. Heart and Lungs pale. Abdomen: Stomach empty. Stomach and intestines, Liver, both kidneys and Spleen are pale. Hyoid bone: intact." Ex.P.3 is the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries 4 to 8 sustained 8-12 hours prior to autopsy. (j) P.W.16, in continuation of his investigation, arrested A3 on 18.04.2008 at 9.00 a.m. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A3, he recovered the knife, M.O.3. Thereafter, he produced A3 before the Court for remand. He arrested A1 on 20.04.2008 at 3.00 p.m. at Puliyangudi-Sankarankovil Road. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A1, he recovered the aruval, M.O.1. Thereafter, he produced A1 before the Court for remand. On 28.04.2008, A2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli. P.W.16 took him to the custody on 30.04.2008. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A2 under Ex.P.19, he recovered M.O.2, aruval. He examined the other witnesses. As the accused Mahendran died, he gave requisition to delete the name of the deceased-accused to the Magistrate Court. He received the post-mortem certificates, Exs.P.2 and 3, chemical examination report/Ex.P.16, Serology report/ExP.17. On completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 01.10.2008. 3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.P.1 to P.21 and marked M.Os.1 to 15. 4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, all the accused have denied each and every circumstance as contrary to the facts. A1 filed a written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., He has stated in the said statement that only the prosecution party are the aggressors as they have come to the house of A2 and quarreled with them. It is further stated that the prosecution party attempted to enter inside the house of A2. The deceased-accused Mahendran prevented them and at that time D1 and D2 attacked deceased-accused Mahendran with an aruval. A1 raised hue and cry and prevented them. It is further stated that the prosecution party attempted to enter inside the house of A2. The deceased-accused Mahendran prevented them and at that time D1 and D2 attacked deceased-accused Mahendran with an aruval. A1 raised hue and cry and prevented them. It is further stated that at that time D1 cut him with an aruval on his head. The deceased-accused Mahendran fetched an aruval from the cattle-shed and in exercise of his right of self-defence cut D1 and D2 repeatedly. A1, being frightened for his life, ran away from the scene with a cut injury on his head. A1 also stated that if the deceased-accused not prevented and attacked D1 and D2, he could have also been killed by them. It is lastly stated by A1 that at the time of occurrence his parents/A2 and A3 were not available in the house and A3 came to the scene on hearing the occurrence. 5. Mr. K.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions: (i) A1 and the deceased-accused Mahendran also sustained serious injuries and the deceased-accused succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot and the report, given by the wife of the deceased-accused one Eswari, has been burked by the prosecution and as such, the prosecution has not come forward with the true version. (ii) P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, in spite of admitting the registration of the case on the basis of the complaint preferred by Eswari, wife of the deceased-accused in Crime No.148/2008, deliberately not produced the First Information Report in respect of that case and not produced the final report and P.W.16 has not even given enough particulars regarding the investigation conducted in the case registered [in Crime NO.148/2008] on the basis of the complaint by the wife of the deceased one Eswari before the Court. (iii) Though it is stated by the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 about the injuries sustained by the deceased-accused Mahendran, none of them has whispered a word about giving explanation as to how the injuries were sustained by A1 and the deceased-accused. P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that A1 sustained a bleeding cut injury on his head. (iii) Though it is stated by the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 about the injuries sustained by the deceased-accused Mahendran, none of them has whispered a word about giving explanation as to how the injuries were sustained by A1 and the deceased-accused. P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that A1 sustained a bleeding cut injury on his head. But he has bluntly stated that he is not aware as to how A1 sustained such injury. P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, also admitted that A1 and the deceased-accused Mahendran sustained injuries in one and the same occurrence. But he has stated that he has not investigated as to how A1 sustained injuries. P.W.16 also admitted that none of the witnesses stated as to how A1 sustained injuries and as such, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. (iv) D2 was armed with a weapon, viz., aruval and even as per the admitted version of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 5, the prosecution party, viz., D1, D2 and their grandfather Pakkirisamy and P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 came towards the house of A2 and the occurrence is said to have taken place in front of the house of P.W.2 and as such, the prosecution party are the aggressors and the accused have exercised only their right of self-defence in view of the serious injuries sustained by the deceased-accused Mahendran and A1. (v) The presence of P.Ws.1 and 5 at the scene at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful as P.W.1 was residing in a village called Arulatchi and the scene village Kilaputhur is 6 kilometers away from the said place and as far as P.W.5 is concerned, he has admitted that he is residing at Thiripurapuram Melachokkampatti village and the said place is 26 kilometers away from the scene village. P.W.1 claimed that he has come to the scene village to inform D1, D2 and their grandfather Pakkirisamy about the puberty ceremony of his daughter and his version is not corroborated by any other materials available on record and as such, he could not have come to the scene and witnessed the occurrence and the possibility of P.W.1 putting the signature in Ex.P.1 subsequently cannot be ruled out. (vi) The prosecution has not come forward with the true version as the author of the report, Ex.P.1, viz., Pakkirisamy, grandfather of D1 and D2 was not examined. (vi) The prosecution has not come forward with the true version as the author of the report, Ex.P.1, viz., Pakkirisamy, grandfather of D1 and D2 was not examined. The said Pakkirisamy was very much available, but he has been withheld by the prosecution and the prosecution has not given any valid reasons for his non-examination and as such, adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution version. (vii) The prosecution has also not examined any independent witness in spite of the availability of independent witness at the scene as per the admission of P.Ws.1 and 4 and the non-examination of independent witnesses in this case is fatal to the prosecution case. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. It is contended that merely because the said eyewitnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. It is pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctors, P.Ws.2 and 3 as they have found corresponding injuries on D1 and D2 as per the overt acts alleged against the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the author of the report, Ex.P.1, viz., Pakkirisamy was not examined due to his old age. It is submitted that though there are certain discrepancies found in the prosecution case, the same would not affect the main case of the prosecution. 7. We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated that the prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. The fact remains that P.W.1 is the co-brother of D1 and P.W.4 is the wife of D1 and P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.4 and as such, all the three eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased party and therefore, they are the interested witnesses. In view of the same, we have to analyze and assess the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 with great care and caution. 9. In view of the same, we have to analyze and assess the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 with great care and caution. 9. The categorical version of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, reveals that the occurrence is said to have taken place in front of the house of A2. It is pertinent to note that all the three eye-witnesses have come forward with one voice to the effect that D1, D2, one Pakkirisamy, grandfather of D1 and D2, and P.W.4 came towards the house of A2. As far as P.Ws.1 and 5 are concerned, it is their version that they have come to inform one Pakkirisamy, grandfather of D1 and D2 in respect of puberty ceremony of P.W.1's daughter and after informing them, they were standing near the house of A2 and they have not given any explanation whatsoever as to why they are standing in that place. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that P.W.1 has admitted that he is a resident of Arulatchi @ Thirumalapuram village and the scene village, viz., Kilaputhur is 6 kilometers away from his village. P.W.5 has admitted in his cross-examination that he is a resident of Thirupurapuram Melachokkampatti village and the said village is 26 kilometers away from the scene village, Kilaputhur. It is pertinent to note that both of them are the chance witnesses and as such, their presence at the scene itself is highly doubtful. 10. Even assuming that P.Ws.1 and 5 were also present at the time of occurrence, it is to be noted that, as pointed out earlier, the deceased party, viz., D1 and D2 , Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2 and P.W.4 were marching towards the house of A2 and D2 was armed with an aruval as per the admitted version of the prosecution. It is seen that the deceased-accused Mahendran as well as A1 also sustained grievous injuries at the time of occurrence. P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that D1, D2 and the deceased-accused Mahendran have sustained injuries in one and the same occurrence. P.W.4, the yet another eye-witness, also categorically admitted in her cross-examination that D1, D2 and the deceased-accused Mahendran sustained injuries in the same occurrence. It is relevant to note that P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that A1 sustained a cut injury on his head and ran away from the scene. P.W.4, the yet another eye-witness, also categorically admitted in her cross-examination that D1, D2 and the deceased-accused Mahendran sustained injuries in the same occurrence. It is relevant to note that P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that A1 sustained a cut injury on his head and ran away from the scene. P.W.4, wife of D1, has also admitted in her cross-examination that A1 sustained injuries on his head. The fact remains that the deceased-accused Mahendran succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. Though the prosecution has explained the injuries by the deceased-accused Mahendran to the effect that D2 attacked the deceased-accused Mahendran, none of the witnesses whispered a word as to how A1 sustained injuries. The evidence of the investigating officer, P.W.16 reveals that a complaint was preferred by the wife of the deceased-accused one Eswari and the case was also registered in crime No.148/2008. The fact remains that the investigating officer neither produced the First Information Report nor the final report before the Court. It is seen that P.W.16 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not enquired as to how A1 sustained injuries and none of the witnesses stated about A1's injury. It is further admitted by P.W.16 in his cross-examination that he has not recovered the aruval used by D1 and D2 and as such, it is quite clear that his investigation discloses that even D1 is armed with the weapon, viz., aruval as he has not denied the same and he has merely stated that he has not recovered the said aruval used by D1 and D2. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the sequence of events and the specific admission of P.Ws.1, 4 and 16 that the prosecution has not at all explained the injuries sustained by A1 and as such, we have no hesitation to hold that the genesis and origin of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. 11. At this juncture it is relevant to refer a landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 held as hereunder : “11. …. 11. At this juncture it is relevant to refer a landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 held 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 or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case. ….” The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also the alleged eye-witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution has not at all explained the injuries sustained by A1 and as such, it is quite clear that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 12. The defence has also taken a categorical stand even at the earliest point of time to the effect that D1 and D2 sustained injuries as the prosecution party are the aggressors, and when they attempted to forcibly enter inside the house of A2, the accused exercised their right of self-defence. 12. The defence has also taken a categorical stand even at the earliest point of time to the effect that D1 and D2 sustained injuries as the prosecution party are the aggressors, and when they attempted to forcibly enter inside the house of A2, the accused exercised their right of self-defence. It is specifically stated by A1 in his written statement filed at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to the effect that only the prosecution party, viz., D1, D2 and others made an attempt to trespass into the house of A2 and at that time, the deceased-accused Mahendran fetched an aruval and attacked D2. It is further stated that he has also been attacked by D1 and if the deceased-accused Mahendran has not fetched the weapon and exercised the right of self-defence even he could have been killed by the prosecution party. 13. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer a latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of exercise of right of self-defence by the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, reported in 2010-1-L.W. (Crl) 308, has held as follows:- “56. In order to find out whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered.” 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same decision referred its earlier decision in Buta Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in (1991) 2 SCC 612 , wherein it was held as hereunder: “10. ... a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat [of circumstances], the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use [exactly] only so much force in retaliation ... commensurate with the danger apprehended to [him] where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private defence commences as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. commensurate with the danger apprehended to [him] where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private defence commences as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high-powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hypertechnical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. ...” 15. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as even in the case on hand, as we have already pointed out, that two persons have sustained serious injuries on the accused side, viz., the deceased-accused Mahendran and A1. It is seen that the deceased-accused Mahendran not only sustained injuries, but also ultimately succumbed to the said injuries and died on the spot. As far as A1 is concerned, though the prosecution has not produced any material including the accident register or wound certificate in respect of A1 and the deceased-accused, it is seen that P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that A1 has sustained a bleeding cut injury on his head and he ran away from the scene. Yet another witness, P.W.4 has admitted in her cross-examination that A1 sustained a head injury and the deceased-accused sustained an injury on his chest and died on the spot. In view of all these admitted factors, it cannot be stated that the accused party had exceeded their right of self-defence. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the accused could have caused injuries on the deceased party, viz., D1 and D2 only during the course of their exercise of right of self-defence. 16. In view of all these admitted factors, it cannot be stated that the accused party had exceeded their right of self-defence. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the accused could have caused injuries on the deceased party, viz., D1 and D2 only during the course of their exercise of right of self-defence. 16. Yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case is that in spite of registering the counter case in Crime No.148 of 2008 on the basis of the complaint preferred by the wife of the deceased-accused Mahendran, the investigating officer admittedly has not produced the First Information Report or the final report in respect of that case in order to show as to how the investigation was conducted and what happened to the fate of the complaint preferred by the wife of the deceased-accused - Eswari. We have already pointed out, as per the admitted version of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, that the deceased-accused and A1 sustained injuries in one and the same occurrence along with D1, D2 and the deceased-accused died on the spot and therefore, the First Information Report was registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the wife of the deceased-accused in the counter case. But unfortunately, the prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the investigating agency has followed the procedure contemplated in respect of the case in counter. 17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ravichandran & Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Thittakudi reported in 2007-2-L.W.(Cril.) 827, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held as hereunder: "14. This Court has been repeatedly holding that when there is a case and counter the investigating officer has to investigate both the complaints in a manner known to law and file the final report in one case and exhibit the materials collected by him during investigation in the connected complaint before the Court, leaving the entire issue namely, which is true or false to be decided by the Court. This is not done in this case, namely, the complaint given by A1 is not marked ; the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation on that complaint is not marked and on top of it the final report is also not marked. .... The police officer is only an investigating officer and he is not the adjudicator. This is not done in this case, namely, the complaint given by A1 is not marked ; the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation on that complaint is not marked and on top of it the final report is also not marked. .... The police officer is only an investigating officer and he is not the adjudicator. On the other hand it is for the Court to decide which complaint is true and who are the aggressors. .... all the eyewitnesses and the deceased are thickly related. There is a long standing enmity between the prosecution party and the accused. On these facts, non-examination of Saraswathi and Alamelu, in the context of the disclosures made by them during investigation assumes importance. In this context the stand of the first accused taken by him in his written statement filed at the end of questioning appears to be more probable than the prosecution case. The Supreme Court as early as in the year 1976 in the case reported in 1976 (4) S.C.C.394 (LAKSHMI SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR) held that when the origin of the prosecution case is suppressed, then the prosecution case must fail. In this case for more than one reason, we find that the prosecution is definitely guilty of suppressing the origin of the case." The principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand for the reasons stated by us earlier. 18. The prosecution also deliberately withheld the examination of the author of Ex.P.1, viz., Pakkirisamy/grandfather of D1 and D2. The contents of Ex.P.1 have been marked through P.W.1, who is only an attesting witness to that vital document. The prosecution has not assigned any valid reasons for the non-examination of the said Pakkirisamy as it is merely stated by P.W.1 that due to his old age, the said Pakkirisamy was not able to appear before the Court. The fact remains that the investigating officer, P.W.16, has not given any valid reasons whatsoever for not producing Pakkirisamy, who is the author of the report, Ex.P.1. In view of the above said factors, we have no hesitation to draw adverse inference against the prosecution case in view of withholding the material witness, as stated above. 19. The prosecution has also chosen to examine only interested witnesses as eye-witnesses. In view of the above said factors, we have no hesitation to draw adverse inference against the prosecution case in view of withholding the material witness, as stated above. 19. The prosecution has also chosen to examine only interested witnesses as eye-witnesses. Admittedly, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased, as already pointed out. It is admitted by P.Ws.1 and 4 that the scene of occurrence is surrounded by number of houses and there was also one tea shop and number of persons were present at that time. But in spite of the same, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the non-examination of the independent witnesses is also fatal to the prosecution case. 20. In view of the above said infirmities, inconsistencies, we cannot attach any importance or place any reliance on the alleged recoveries of the weapons and bloodstained clothes from the accused. It is seen that even in respect of the said arrest and recovery, the prosecution has chosen to place reliance only on the evidence of the Village Administrative officer, P.W.6 and Village Assistant, P.W.7 and the investigating officer has not stated any reason for not summoning any independent witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, by the judgment dated 21.06.2010 made in S.C.No.57 of 2009 are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and they are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the appellants.