Judgment :- 1. This revision arises against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Tiruvallur, passed in C.A.No.25 of 2007 on 20.08.2008. 2. A case stood registered against the four petitioners herein and one another in Crime No.287 of 2003 on the file of the respondent police. The prosecution case was that at about 2 a.m. in the wee hours on 02.06.2003, PW-1 was sleeping outside his house when the five accused who were his neighbours came shouting at him saying that he had no authority to question them about taking water to their house. They used abusive language when PW-1 questioned them as to why they were shouting so late in the night, A1 dealthim a cut injury in the left hand by using a small axe, A2 hit him on the left side of the head with a stick, A3 beat him with a stick on the hand while the accused 4 and 5 held him from behind. PWs.2 and 3, wife and daughter of PW-1, rushed there and the accused pushed them. PW-1 was taken to hospital at about 5.30 a.m. A case was registered in Crime No.287 of 2003 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC.On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 147, 148, 326, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and the accused were tried for such offences. One of the accused died pending trial. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, marked ten exhibits and two material objects. The defence examined one witness. 4. Under judgment dated 03.08.2007 in C.C.No.240 of 2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvallur, acquitted the petitioners in respect of charges under Sections 147, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC whilst convicting the petitioners for offence under Sections 148 and 326 IPC. For offence under Section 148 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- in default one month simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 326 IPC they were awarded six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default one month simple imprisonment. Against their conviction, the petitioners moved an appeal in C.A.No.25 of 2007 which came to be dismissed under judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Tiruvallur, dated 20.08.2008. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Against their conviction, the petitioners moved an appeal in C.A.No.25 of 2007 which came to be dismissed under judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Tiruvallur, dated 20.08.2008. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to several discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, the same are not such as would disprove the taking place of the occurrence itself. However, this revision would have to succeed not on the ground that no occurrence has taken place but that there is reason to suspect that the genesis of the occurrence stands suppressed. The defence has examined a Doctor as DW-1. On the fateful date i.e., 02.03.2003 he had been working at the Ponneri Government hospital. His evidence is that at 3.35 a.m. on such date, the first accused was brought to the hospital with a police memo. The first accused suffered a cut injury of 4½ cms. on his right shoulder, a cut injury in 5 x ½ cm. on the back of one hand and a lacerated injury of 1 cm. on the left hand. He informed DW-1 of an attack with knives by three known persons at 11.00 p.m. on the night of 01.03.2003. In cross, DW-1, Doctor has stated that the injuries could have been occasioned by falling on a sharp object. The injury suffered by the first accused and those by PW-1 could well have occurred at one and the same time. In any event, when the body of the accused reveals serious injuries, it is for the prosecution to explain the same. PW-9, investigating officer, claims lack of knowledge regards the first accused having been forwarded to the Ponneri Government hospital with a police memo. Though he denies that he had torn up the complaint preferred by the brother of A1, he admits the accident register and the admission of A1 at the Ponneri hospital. While the trial Court seems to have read merit into the prosecution case out of the injury suffered by the first accused, the Appellate Court has not touched upon the issue. 7. While the trial Court seems to have read merit into the prosecution case out of the injury suffered by the first accused, the Appellate Court has not touched upon the issue. 7. In circumstances where injuries of serious nature suffered by the accused had not been explained by the prosecution, this Court would have to inform that the genesis of the occurrence is not clear and consequently, afford the petitioners the benefit of doubt. 8. In decision reported in (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 837 [Panneer @ Thachinamurthy and others v. State], this Court has observed as follows: "The wound certificate and the case diary were also marked in this regard. A perusal of the documents would clearly indicate that A-1 sustained fracture. It is not a case of the prosecution that A-1 sustained injuries in a different transaction, but A-1 sustained injuries in the same transaction and that too by the act of the deceased, which fact was brought to the notice of the Investigator even on 25.10.2006 itself, but no steps have been taken and no investigation was done in this regard and not even a material was recovered or produced before the Court. All would go to show that the Investigator was not prepared to place all necessary materials before the Court to arrive at a correct decision." 9. The Criminal Revision stands allowed and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Tiruvallur, passed in C.A.No.25 of 2007 dated 20.08.2008, is set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of all charges in the case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioners shall be refunded to them.