Judgment R.S. Ramanathan, J. 1. The accused in S.C. No. 171 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Coimbatore are the appellants. They were charge sheeted for offences under sections 147, 148 and 307 of the IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A. 1 for offence under section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; also convicted A. 1 for the offence under section 324 (2 Counts) IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment for each count. A. 3 to A. 9 and A. 15 were convicted for offence under section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. A. 2, A. 10 to A. 14 and A. 18 were convicted for offence under section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment; and A. 16 and A. 17 were convicted for offence under section 147 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed the above Appeals. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.3.2004 at 10.30 p.m., all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and with the common intention of committing murder, A. 1 to A. 15 and A. 18 were armed with iron pipes, wooden logs and caused injuries on P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and therefore, having committed the offence under sections 147, 148, 307 and 307 r/w 149 of the IPC. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 11 Exhibits and 10 Material Objects. The accused examined one witness as D.W. 1 on their side. P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are the injured witnesses and P.W. 7 is the mahazar witness. P.W. 8 did not support the prosecution nor was treated as hostile and P.W. 9 supported the prosecution case. P.W. 10 also supported the prosecution case and P.W. 11 is the Doctor. P.W. 12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered F.I.R. and P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 also deposed that she sustained injuries in the incident that took place on 8.3.2004 and the other witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 also spoke about the attack on P.W. 6. However, she was not examined by the Doctor. 2. P.W. 6 also deposed that she sustained injuries in the incident that took place on 8.3.2004 and the other witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 also spoke about the attack on P.W. 6. However, she was not examined by the Doctor. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the entire occurrence has been falsely fabricated by the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 with the help of police and admittedly, there was no motive for the appellants and there was a lot of contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and also in the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and there was no corresponding injury on P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 as spoken to by them and no specific overt-act was attributed to any accused and if, really, all the accused numbering 18 attacked P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 as stated by them, they would have sustained more injuries and except contusions and lacerated injuries on the head, no injury was found on the body of the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and insofar as P.W. 5 is concerned, the Doctor has given evidence to the effect that P.W. 5 had already undergone treatment and on 8.3.2004 at about 11.45 p.m., he saw a sutured wound on her head and therefore, the occurrence could not have happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution as P.W. 5 had already underwent treatment in a private hospital, which was contrary to the case of the prosecution and these infirmities appearing in the evidence on the side of the prosecution were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submitted that as per the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, immediately, after the occurrence, the police came to the spot and the accused on seeing the police ran away. On the contrary, the case of the prosecution is that the injured persons P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 immediately after the occurrence went to hospital and get themselves treated and P.W. 1, thereafter, came to the police station and gave a complaint and therefore, there was suppression of First Information Report and these infirmities were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. They therefore submitted that benefit of doubt arising there from may be given to the appellants and they may be acquitted. 3. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 have given a clear and cogent evidence about the overt-act attributed against each of the accused and all of them invariably deposed that A. 3 was armed with iron pipe and he attacked P.W. 2, and the other accused were armed with casirona sticks and all of them attacked the victims with sticks all over the body and specific overt-acts were attributed to each accused by P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of Doctor also corresponds with the injuries sustained by the witnesses and more than 18 persons assembled at the spot and they shared a common intention to murder the witnesses and therefore, the charge sheet was laid for the offence under section 307 IPC and having regard to the nature of offence, the learned trial Judge convicted them for offence under section 324 IPC and 324 r/w 149 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellants and there is no need for interference with the judgment of the trial Court. 4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the following points are formulated for consideration in these Appeals. (i) Whether the trial Court was right in convicting the appellants for offence under sections 147, 148, 324 and 324 r/w 149 of the IPC? (ii) Whether the Doctor's evidence supports the case of the prosecution? (iii) Whether the F.I.R. was suppressed? 5. As stated supra, as per the prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 sustained injuries and P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 were treated by the Doctor and P.W. 6 Manju was not examined by the Doctor. The occurrence was spoken to by P.W. 1 to P.W. 6, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that all the accused were armed with iron pipes and sticks and they attacked the witnesses. The occurrence was spoken to by P.W. 1 to P.W. 6, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that all the accused were armed with iron pipes and sticks and they attacked the witnesses. Admittedly, the occurrence took place at 10.30 p.m., and no evidence was let in to the effect that there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence to identify all the accused. Though all the accused alleged to have attacked the witnesses, the injured witnesses gave a different version. P.W. 2 who sustained lacerated injury on the left side of the parietal region and also contusion on the middle of the head did not state who caused injury on his head though he deposed that A. 3 Gopal was having iron pipe and attacked all the persons and he did not specifically state that A. 3 Gopal attacked him with a iron pipe on his head. He only stated that A. 11 attacked him on the calf muscle of his leg and there was no injury on the calf muscle of P.W. 2 as per the evidence of Doctor. Actually, P.W. 2 sustained two injuries on his head and the Doctor also deposed that the lacerated injury would have been caused when a person was attacked with an iron pipe and the second injury on the head would have been caused when a person was attacked with casirona stick. In the absence of evidence by P.W. 2 that A. 3 attacked him with an iron pipe, it cannot be presumed that the injury on the head of P.W. 2 was caused by P.W. 3. P.W. 1 Saravanan was examined by Doctor and he found a punctured wound on the back of his head. Doctor did not state whether such injury would have been caused by iron pipe or stick (MO. 1 or MO. 3). No opinion was given by the Doctor to that effect. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 he was attacked by A. 7 and A. 10. He also did not state the portion of the body on which A. 7 and A. 10 attacked him. As a matter of fact, in his chief examination, he has stated that he was inside the house and on hearing noise, he came out from his house and found the people fighting with each other. He also did not state the portion of the body on which A. 7 and A. 10 attacked him. As a matter of fact, in his chief examination, he has stated that he was inside the house and on hearing noise, he came out from his house and found the people fighting with each other. He also deposed that P.W. 6 Manju sustained injury and P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 also sustained injuries but he did not state who caused those injuries on them. The evidence of Doctor is not supporting the case of the prosecution. P.W. 1 did not state that he was attacked by A. 7 and A. 10 on the head and even assuming that A. 7 and A. 10 who were armed with stick attacked P.W. 1, the punctured wound would not have happened if a person was attacked with stick. 6. P.W. 3 Priya deposes that she was attacked by Prakash on her head. According to the evidence of Doctor, she sustained two injuries, one lacerated injury and the other one was the contusion on the left side of the parietal region. There was no other injury found on her and the lacerated injury corresponds with her overt-act attributed to A. 15 Prakash. P.W. 4 Devi deposed that A. 9 Abu @ Abuthahir attacked her on her head and she sustained injuries. As per Doctor's evidence, she sustained injuries on the head and the Doctor found lacerated injury and it corresponds with the overt-act attributed to A. 9. As stated supra, P.W. 5 Dhanalakshmi was treated in a private hospital and the Doctor found sutured wound on her head and that would also prove that immediately after the occurrence, she got treatment in a private hospital and thereafter, went to the Government Hospital. Further, P.W. 9 deposed that immediately after the occurrence, the police came to the spot and all the accused ran away and Kalimuthu and Chandran took the injured persons to the hospital. P.W. 10 also deposed that on seeing the police all the accused ran away. Further, P.W. 9 deposed that immediately after the occurrence, the police came to the spot and all the accused ran away and Kalimuthu and Chandran took the injured persons to the hospital. P.W. 10 also deposed that on seeing the police all the accused ran away. According to the FIR, the victims went straight to the hospital and thereafter, FIR was given by P.W. 1 Saravanan and, if, really, the police had come to the incident spot as spoken to by P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 who are the independent witnesses, FIR would have been obtained from the victims at the place of occurrence. There was no explanation by the prosecution for not recording FIR at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1, who gave FIR did not state that the police came to the spot and on seeing the police the accused ran away. Therefore, having regard to the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, the independent eyewitnesses, it is proved that the police came to the spot and on seeing the police all the accused ran away by dropping the weapons. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, there was no corresponding injury on the victims and having regard to the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, that the police came to the spot but no statement was recorded from the witnesses by the police at the spot, and FIR was given later at the police station and all these would create suspicion about the prosecution case. Though in the FIR, P.W. 1 has stated the names of all the accused, while giving evidence, he has not stated the presence of all the accused and he only stated that Gopal attacked P.W. 2 and he was attacked by Kulanthaivel, Nagaraj and Karthick. Similarly, P.W. 2 deposed that he was attacked by A. 6, A. 4, A. 5, A. 11 and A. 3 attacked P.W. 2. As stated supra, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 deposed that A. 3 attacked P.W. 2. P.W. 2 in his evidence did not state that A. 3 Gopal attacked him and he simply stated that A. 3 attacked and he did not depose whether A. 3 attacked him or others. 7. As stated supra, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 deposed that A. 3 attacked P.W. 2. P.W. 2 in his evidence did not state that A. 3 Gopal attacked him and he simply stated that A. 3 attacked and he did not depose whether A. 3 attacked him or others. 7. In short, there was no corresponding injury on the witnesses as attributed by them and there was no explanation by the prosecution why they had not recorded statement from the witnesses available at the place of occurrence, when admittedly, the police had gone to the police station while fight was going on and these infirmities were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. In view of all these infirmities, the points for consideration are answered in favour of the accused/appellants and against the respondent and the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused/appellant. In the result, the Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellants by the impugned judgment are set aside. Bail Bonds, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand terminated and fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.