Judgment :- 1. The appellant/A-1 stands convicted for the offence under Sections 506 (II) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and the appellant also stands convicted for the offence under Section 332 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in S.C.No.126 of 1998 dated 13.1.2004. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come forward with the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.8.1997, at about 3.45 p.m. A1 to A4 entered into the police station at Kundadam and enquired P.W.1 Head Constable, about the whereabouts of the two persons who had gone for sticking posters and said to be missing from the previous day. At that time, a wordy quarrel took place in between P.W.1 and the accused. In the wordy altercation, according to P.W.1, the accused used filthy language against the police personnel and inflicted injuries on P.W.1 P.W.2 the other constable also sustained injuries. P.W.7 the Sub Inspector of Police came to the police station at about 4.30 p.m. to whom P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 special report stating that the accused trespassed into the police station and assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 2. Then P.W.7 sent the injured constables to the Government Hospital, Dharapuram along with medical memo. P.W.7 registered a case in Cr.No.195/1997 under Sections 448, 332 and 506 (II) IPC and prepared Ex.P8 FIR. He arrested A1 to A4 and sent A1 to Government Hospital, Dharapuram. Subsequently, P.W.7 examined P.Ws. 5 and 6 and altered the section of offence to Section 307 IPC and prepared Ex.P10. P.W.4 to P.W.6 are the eye witnesses, who were present at that time. P.W. 3 is the Government Hospital Doctor who treated the police constables P.W.1 (HC 1585) and P.W.2 (P.C.1061) on 15.8.1997 at 3.45 p.m. for the injuries inflicted on them. P.W.3 issued Ex.P3 Accident Register copy . Subsequently, further investigation was taken by P.W.8 Inspector of Police, Kundadam. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 333, 332, 109 and 506 (I) IPC. 3. P.W.3 issued Ex.P3 Accident Register copy . Subsequently, further investigation was taken by P.W.8 Inspector of Police, Kundadam. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 333, 332, 109 and 506 (I) IPC. 3. Before the trial court on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P1 to P10 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and also no documents were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied their complicity. The trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, while acquitting A2 to A4, found A1 guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence the present appeal. 5. The vehement contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant/A-1 went to the police station to enquire about the missing men, where he was manhandled by the police and he suffered severe injuries. The learned Senior Counsel on that basis pleaded that the prosecution case has to be disbelieved and accused is entitled for acquittal. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that while the accused was asking the police constables about the whereabouts of the missing men, they only picked up wordy quarrel and attacked the police constables and thus the offence against them has been proved. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is seen that on 15.8.1997 at about 3.45 p.m. A1 and A2 came to the police station and they enquired about two persons who allegedly went to stick posters and said to be missing from the previous day. At that time the enquiry turned into a wordy quarrel which also ended in scuffling in which both the parties sustained injures. From the evidence of P.W.3 Doctor it is seen that the accused as well as P.W.1 Head Constable and P.W.2 Constable sustained injuries. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.3 that P.W. 1 and P.W.2 went to Government Hospital, Dharapuram and then they were referred to the Government Hospital, Erode, where they took treatment as inpatients for thirteen days. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.3 that P.W. 1 and P.W.2 went to Government Hospital, Dharapuram and then they were referred to the Government Hospital, Erode, where they took treatment as inpatients for thirteen days. It is seen from Ex.P1 wound certificate and Ex.P3 Accident Register copy that the injuries are very simple and mere abrasions, whereas as could be seen from Ex.P 4 wound certificate, A1 also sustained injuries and due to the said injuries at one stage he had epileptic fits. During cross examination, P.W.3 in his evidence would state that when the police constable brought A1 to the hospital the condition of A1 had deteriorated and the same was informed to the police constable. The evidence of P.W.3 would run as follows:- TAMIL 8. From the evidence it is seen that A1 was hospitalised for more than three weeks for taking treatment in connection with fits suffered by him. However, as regards hospitalisation of A1, it is the case of the prosecution that since A1 suffered fits before remand he was taken to hospital for treatment. Even though they would take such a stand, from the reading of the evidence of A3, it is clear that due to severe injuries only A1 had suffered fits. Further the Doctor has also stated that at the time of attending A1, he saw that saliva frothing was present in his mouth. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.3 I am of the view that A1 had been dealt with by the police constables in the police station itself. Therefore, severe injury has been noticed only on the person of A1 and not on the police constables. The injury sustained by A1 could not be explained by the prosecution. The explanation offered by the prosecution that A1 had naturally suffered epileptic fits is not correct. A1 suffered fits only because of those injury. Therefore, this aspect has not been properly looked into by the trial court. Even though the accused went to the police station and sustained injuries, the police constables exceeded their limit, which could be seen from the evidence. Therefore, considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Therefore, considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled and fine, if any paid, shall be refunded.