JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.-This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Spl. Case No. 50/2003. The accused/respondents were tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 448, 427, 326, 323 and 324 and for the offence punishable Under Section 3(1x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 9.00 a.m. at Kalkere Village on 22.09.2002, wife of the complainant Renukamma and Kempadevamma wife of Chikkanaika had been to collect water near public tap, the wife of the accused No. 1 namely Kalabai told Renukamma and Kempadevamma that they should come to collect water only after she collecting water and on the said subject there was verbal quarrel between the wife of PW-1 and wife of accused No. 1. At about 10.00 p.m. on 22.9.2002, all the accused formed themselves with an unlawful assembly with a view to take a revenge of morning incident relating to collection of water in a public tap, came near the house of PW-1 abused him in filthy language. 3. PW-4-Rajanaika-brother of the complainant came to the house, he was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 3. So also accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 assaulted PW-3 who came near the spot. Accused Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 assaulted the son of complainant with various weapons such as clubs, stones, sickles and chopper, consequent upon which PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 sustained injuries. They were admitted to Government Hospital at Tiptur on 23.09.2002 at about 3.45 p.m. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused with a view to insult the complainant and his family members abused him taking the name of his caste and assaulted the injured. The complaint came to be lodged at about 9.30 p.m. on 23.09.2002 by PW-1 who is the eye witness to the incident. Complaint is received by PW-15-PSI attached to Honnavalli Police Station. Consequently, the said Officer registered the complaint in Crime No. 53/2002 and sent FIR as per Ex.P3 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is alleged that the first information report reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 8.45 A.M. on 24.09.2002. Complaint is received by PW-15-PSI attached to Honnavalli Police Station. Consequently, the said Officer registered the complaint in Crime No. 53/2002 and sent FIR as per Ex.P3 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is alleged that the first information report reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 8.45 A.M. on 24.09.2002. During the course of investigation, Police secured wound certificates pertaining to PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 as per Ex.P8, P7, P6 and P5 respectively. After completion of investigation Police laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 16 and marked 13 Exhibits as Ex.P1 to P13 and 11 material objects. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record and on hearing acquitted the accused. 5. The learned Advocates on record have submitted their respective arguments in respect of their respective cases. 6. PW-1 is eye witness to the incident which occurred at about 10.00 p.m. on 22.09.2002. He lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. He was also a witness for mahazars Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. All these are the scene of offence mahazars conducted in front of the house of PWs 1, 5 and 4 respectively. Certain material objects (weapons allegedly used in the incident) were seized from the spot. 7. PW-2 is injured eye witness. He has treated by the Doctor-PW-13. The wound certificate of PW-2 is at Ex.P8. The Doctor has opined that one of the injuries sustained by PW-2 is grievous in nature. PW-2 has sustained fracture of ulnar. PW-3 is another injured, his wound certificate is at Ex.P7. PWs 4 and 5 are also injured, their wound certificates are at Ex.P6 and Ex.P5 respectively. PWs 6, 7 and 8 are eye witnesses, relatives of the injured. PW-9 is witness to the mahazars Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and PW-10 is witness for mahazarEx.P2 and whereas PW-11 is witness for mahazar Ex.P4. Both of them have turned hostile. PW-12 is witness for mahazar Ex.P3 under which MO-1 club is seized. He has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-13 is Doctor who examined all the four injured PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P8, P7, P6 and P5 respectively. PW-14 is Village Accountant. He has issued house extract of PWs 1, 5 and 4 as per Ex.P9, 10 and 11 respectively. He has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-13 is Doctor who examined all the four injured PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P8, P7, P6 and P5 respectively. PW-14 is Village Accountant. He has issued house extract of PWs 1, 5 and 4 as per Ex.P9, 10 and 11 respectively. Those extracts clearly reveal that the properties are vacant site and submitted that no house was existing where the accident has taken place. PW-15-is PSI who registered the complaint given by PW-1 as per Ex. P1 on 23.09.2002 and a crime No. 53/2002 was registered and FIR as per Ex.P13 was sent by him. PW-16 is Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet. 8. As aforementioned PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 are eye witnesses. There cannot be any interestedness on the part of the injured witnesses to speak against the accused. The injured, in other words, cannot be termed as interested witnesses more particularly when they have sustained injuries. But in the matter on hand, we find that the case of the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the prosecution case. It has not come out with the true facts before the Court. 9. Ex.P5-wound certificate of PW-5 reveals the history that he was assaulted by Surendra Singh (accused No. 3) and others at about 2.00 a.m. on 22.09.2002. This apart, the wound certificate reveals that the incident had taken place at about 2.00 a.m. on 22.09.2002 and not at 9.00 p.m. or 10.00 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. All the injured are examined at 3.00 p.m. on 23.09.2002 by Doctor PW-13. Though the case of the prosecution is that the incident has allegedly occurred at 10.00 p.m. on 22.09.2002 the injured were taken to hospital on the next day, i.e., on 23.09.2002 at about 3.00 p.m. It is curious to note that the Doctor has observed in all the wound certificates that the injuries were fresh in nature he did not observe any blood clots, black coloured injuries, etc., on the body of the injured. It is admitted by the Doctor that after about 8 to 10 hours from the time of sustaining injuries, there would be blood clots and would be blacking of the injuries. It is admitted by the Doctor that after about 8 to 10 hours from the time of sustaining injuries, there would be blood clots and would be blacking of the injuries. In the matter on hand, though the medical examination has taken place after 14 to 15 hours from the incident, no such blackening of the skin or blood clots were found. Admittedly, the weapons were not shown to the Medical Officer by the Police to get his opinion as to whether the injuries might have been caused by such weapons or not. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court justified in observing that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said witnesses have suffered injuries as alleged on that day. 10. The incident, as per the case of the prosecution has occurred between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. in the village on 22.09.2002, whereas the complaint came to be lodged by PW-1 as per Ex.P1 about 9.30 p.m. on 23.09.2002, i.e., after a lapse of about 24 hours. Though it is true that the complaint cannot be treated as encyclopedia, it cannot be ignored that it is a valuable piece of material in as much as the same is the first version of the incident. If there is delay in lodging the complaint, then there is every likelihood of manipulation of facts by the complainant in the complaint. There is every likelihood of implicating as many persons as possible in the crime. Admittedly, PW-1 is eye witness. He himself took the injured to the hospital and got them admitted. He did not venture to lodge the complaint at Tiptur at least at about 3.00 p.m. According to the prosecution, the injured were admitted at Tiptur Hospital at 3.00 P.M. There is no reason as to why the complaint came to be lodged after about 24hours of the alleged incident. Such unexplained delay under the facts and circumstances of the case gives rise suspicion in the mind of the Court relating to the version of the prosecution. 11. According to prosecution, the injured were assaulted by sickle, chopper and clubs apart from stones. But neither sickle nor chopper are seized, only the stones and clubs are seized. Such unexplained delay under the facts and circumstances of the case gives rise suspicion in the mind of the Court relating to the version of the prosecution. 11. According to prosecution, the injured were assaulted by sickle, chopper and clubs apart from stones. But neither sickle nor chopper are seized, only the stones and clubs are seized. PW-3 has admitted in the cross-examination that PW-1 produced the clubs before the Police, so also PW-5 has admitted in the cross-examination that PW-1 produced the weapons used, before the Police. Thus, the admissions clearly reveal that the investigation is not done honestly and transparently. The material objects were not seized from the spot but were produced by PW-1 who has taken the lead in this matter. 12. It is curious to note that the complaint nowhere mentions the assault on PWs 2 and 5. PW-5 is the person who stated to have received the grievous injuries and all other injured have sustained simple injuries. The complaint is conspicuously silent about the assault on PW-2 by any of the accused. On the other hand, PW-2 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 10. The said fact is not forthcoming in the complaint lodged by the eye witness. 13. PW-3 in his cross-examination has admitted that when the incident took place at 9.30 p.m. on 22.09.2002 all the prosecution witnesses had gone to the spot and at that point of time, number of persons of the village gathered there. There was a verbal quarrel between said people and prosecution witnesses. There was free-fight between two groups. Some people threw stones on the houses. In the said quarrel the prosecution witnesses were injured, and some of the accused were also injured. It is specifically admitted by PW-3 that there is a case and the trial went on before the Tiptur Court based on the complaint lodged by Kamala Bai, Surendra Singh. Kamala Bai is none other than the wife of accused No. 1 and Surendra Singh is none other than accused No. 9. This clearly goes to show that there was a case and counter case. The incident arises out of free-fight between the parties. It is further admitted by PW-3 in the cross-examination that prior to lodging of complaint by PW-1, accused No. 3 had lodged complaint against the prosecution witnesses. This clearly goes to show that there was a case and counter case. The incident arises out of free-fight between the parties. It is further admitted by PW-3 in the cross-examination that prior to lodging of complaint by PW-1, accused No. 3 had lodged complaint against the prosecution witnesses. He has further admitted that as number of people had gathered on the spot at the time of incident and as there was group fight, he was not in a position to state specifically as to who assaulted whom and where they assaulted and with which weapon. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 makes it clear that the incident has taken place in a Mela and it was a group fight or free-fight. Therefore, it cannot be exactly said that as to who assaulted whom and who was the aggressor, etc. 14. PW-5 has admitted in the cross-examination that the incident has taken place at 7.00 p.m. and the Police arrived at the scene of offence at about 8 to 9 p.m. on the very day, i.e., on 22.09.2002, which means the Police were already present, the incident has taken place somewhere earlier to 8.00 p.m. and the Police came to the spot at about 8.00 to 9.00 p.m. Whereas the complaint came to be lodged at about 9.00 p.m. on the next day, i.e., on 23.09.2002, i.e., nearly delay of 24 hours. 15. PW-1 has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that he lodged the complaint as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by wife of the accused No. 1 leading to the incident. 16. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear opinion that the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused inasmuch as the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the crime. The true facts are not brought out before the Court, even otherwise the materials on record reveal that the incident has taken place in the Mela and there was free-fight between two groups. Both the groups had sustained certain injuries. 17. Since the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the same does not call for interference by this Court. The Appeal stands dismissed.