JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 198 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Tiruchirappalli. The second accused was one Mr. Palanimanickam. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused. The first charge was against all the three accused under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.; the second charge was against the accused 1 and 2 alone under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and the third charge was against the third accused under Section 324 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 15.02.2011, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused from all charges. The Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and the third accused under Section 324 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the Trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and sentenced the third accused for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 3 are before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Arivazhagan. P.W. 1 is his brother and P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1. They were all residing at Anbil Padugai Village in Tiruchirappalli District. They had purchased 2 acres and 75 cents of land from P.W. 8, few years before the occurrence. Thus, according to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the land in question absolutely belonged to them. The accused 1 and 2 are brothers and the third accused is the wife of the second accused. According to them, the land in question was under their agricultural lease all along and they cultivated the same. (ii) While so, admittedly, on 27.07.2009, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the deceased had gone to the said disputed property, entered into the said land and started digging a bore-well. According to them, the land in question was under their agricultural lease all along and they cultivated the same. (ii) While so, admittedly, on 27.07.2009, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the deceased had gone to the said disputed property, entered into the said land and started digging a bore-well. On hearing about the same, the accused 1 to 3 came to the spot and questioned the authority of the deceased and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to dig a bore-well when the land was under the cultivation of the accused party. This resulted in a quarrel. It is alleged that in the said quarrel, the first accused attacked the deceased with a rice pounder on his head. The second accused cut him on the middle of his head and the third accused cut him on the back side of his head with aruval. When P.W. 1 intervened and tried to rescue the deceased, the first accused attacked him with the same rice pounder on his head. In the same occurrence, the first accused also sustained injuries. It is alleged that all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Then, P.W. 1 made arrangements for 108 Ambulance Service, in which he took the deceased to the hospital. (iii) P.W. 5, who was an Assistant Surgeon at Lalgudi Government Hospital, examined the deceased at 10.30 a.m. on 27.07.2009. He was brought by one Rajasekar. At that time, the deceased was unconscious. Mr. Rajasekar told P.W. 5 that the deceased had been attacked by three known persons with a rice pounder and aruval. He found the following two injuries on the deceased: (i) A lacerated injury measuring 7 x 6 x 3 cm on the forehead; and (ii) A lacerated injury measuring 6 x 3 x 2 cm on the right side of the head" Since the condition of the deceased was serious, P.W. 5 forwarded him to the Government Hospital at Tiruchirappalli. Ex. P. 6 is the Accident Register. (iv) P.W. 6, Dr. Geetha Sankari, examined P.W. 1 at 11.00 a.m. on 27.07.2009. He had come with a policeman. He told P.W. 6 that he was attacked by four known persons with aruval and stick. Ex. P. 6 is the Accident Register. (iv) P.W. 6, Dr. Geetha Sankari, examined P.W. 1 at 11.00 a.m. on 27.07.2009. He had come with a policeman. He told P.W. 6 that he was attacked by four known persons with aruval and stick. P.W. 6 noticed the following injuries on him: (i) A cut injury measuring 6 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left forearm; (ii) A cut injury measuring 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left thumb; and (iii) An abrasion measuring 2 x 1 cm on the left side of the head. Ex. P. 7 is the Accident Register. She admitted him as inpatient. All the injuries were simple in nature. (v) On the same day, P.W. 5, examined the first accused. He told him that he was attacked by two known persons with aruval and wooden log at 09.00 a.m. on 27.07.2009 at his field. He found the following injuries: (i) A cut injury measuring 14 x 3 x 2 cm on the left side of the head; (ii) A cut injury measuring 5 x 2 x 1 cm on the left side of the head; (iii) A lacerated injury measuring 2 x 1 cm on the forehead; and (iv) A contusion on the left fore arm. Ex. D. 1 is the Accident Register. All the injuries were simple in nature. (vi) Before going to the hospital, P.W. 1 went to Lalgudi Police Station and made a complaint about the occurrence under Ex. P. 1. P.W. 10, the then Head Constable of Lalgudi Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 596 of 2009 under Sections 294(b),394 and 307 I.P.C. Ex. P. 1 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. (vii) P.W. 11, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation on 27.07.2009 and reached the place of occurrence at 11.15 a.m. He prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W. 3 and another witness. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. The deceased, who was in the hospital, succumbed to the injuries on the same day. P.W. 7, Dr. Shanmugam declared him dead and gave death intimation to the police. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. The deceased, who was in the hospital, succumbed to the injuries on the same day. P.W. 7, Dr. Shanmugam declared him dead and gave death intimation to the police. On receiving the said intimation at 01.30 a.m., on 28.07.2009, P.W. 11 altered the case into one under Sections294(b), 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Ex. P12 is the Alteration Report. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. (viii) P.W. 9, Dr. Renugadevi, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 28.07.2009 at 11.00 a.m. She found the following injuries: " Wounds: 1) Sutured wounds:-- On the left frontal region of the scalp, 5 cm in length. On removal of the sutures, edges are irregular, 1 cm in breadth and bone deep. On the left parietal region of the scalp, 6 cm in length. On the left parietal region of the scalp, 6 cm in length. On removal of the sutures, edges are irregular, 1 cm in breadth and bone deep. 2) Dark brown colour abrasions: On the top of left shoulder, 1 cm x 1 cm, back of right wrist 5 cm x 3 cm. 3). Bruising of frontal, temporal, patietal, occipital regions of the scalp and both temporalis muscle - Dark red. Fissured fracture of both temporal bone along the sagittal suture in a single line. Comminuted fracture of occipital bone present. Sub dural haemorrhage and Sub arachnoid haemorrhage on both cerebral and cerebellar hemisphers. Fracture base of skull - both middle cranial fossa present. The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem. No other external, internal or bony wound. Fissured fracture of both temporal bone along the sagittal suture in a single line. Comminuted fracture of occipital bone present. Sub dural haemorrhage and Sub arachnoid haemorrhage on both cerebral and cerebellar hemisphers. Fracture base of skull - both middle cranial fossa present. The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem. No other external, internal or bony wound. Other findings: Peritoneum intact, cavity empty, Pleura intact, cavity empty, pericardium intact, cavity straw colour fluid; Heart normal in size, Myocardium Normal; Chambers fluid and clotted blood; valves normal, Coronary vessels patent, Great vessels Normal; Lungs c/s congested; Larynx, Trachea intact, mucosa pale; Hyoid bone intact, Stomach full sized cooked rice particles, no specific smell, mucosa congested; Oesophagus intact, mucosa pale; Pancreas pale; Gall bladder full, No stone; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys c/s congested; Omentum and Mesentery intact, normal; small intestine yellowish chyme, no specific smell, Mucosa congested; Appendis intact normal; Large intestine filled with gas; urinary bladder intact, empty; pelvic intact, skull bones, scalp, Membranes, Brain vessels, Sinuses and Brain - vide wound column; CSF blood stained; Vertebral column and cord intact; All other internal organs on c/s pale." Ex. P. 9 is the Postmortem Certificate. She gave opinion that the deceased died of head injury. (ix) During the course of investigation, on 29.07.2009, at 02.00 p.m., near Poovalur Bus Stop, P.W. 11 arrested the second accused in the presence of P.W. 4 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a rice pounder and two aruvals. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W. 11, P.W. 4 and another witness to the said place and produced M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 from the hide out. P.W. 11 recovered the same. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. On 01.08.2009, at 11.30 a.m. at Kollidam, he arrested the third accused and forwarded her for judicial remand. He gave a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. The Report revealed that there was human blood noticed on all the material objects including the weapons. On completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against all the three accused. 2. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The Report revealed that there was human blood noticed on all the material objects including the weapons. On completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against all the three accused. 2. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 11 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited, besides 6 Material Objects. 3. Out of the said witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they have stated about the individual overt acts of all the three accused. P.W. 3 has spoken about the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch prepared at the place of occurrence and the recovery of the bloodstained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused and the consequential recovery of M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 at his instance. P.W. 5 has spoken about the injuries found on the deceased and on the first accused. P.W. 6, Dr. Geetha Sankari, has spoken about the injuries found on P.W. 1 and the treatment given to him. P.W. 7, Dr. Shanmugam, has stated that he declared the deceased dead and gave intimation to the police. P.W. 8 is the former owner of the disputed land, under whom, the accused were the cultivating tenants. P.W. 9 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion given by her. P.W. 10 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W. 11 has spoken about the investigation done. 4. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On their side, they marked the Accident Register of the first accused as Ex. D. 1. They did not examine any witness on their side. According to the defence, the deceased party were the aggressors and they only attacked the first accused. 5. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 and 3 alone, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced them accordingly. That is how, they are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. According to the defence, the deceased party were the aggressors and they only attacked the first accused. 5. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 and 3 alone, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced them accordingly. That is how, they are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands, in as much as, in respect of the injuries sustained by the first accused, in the same occurrence, a counter case was registered in Crime No. 597 of 2007, but the same was not at all investigated properly by P.W. 11. He would further submit that the injuries sustained by the first accused have not been explained away by the prosecution. The learned counsel would next contend that it is in evidence that the deceased party were the aggressors. Thus, according to him, the accused were entitled for the right of private defence of property and also for person. The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence and therefore the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the accused party were the aggressors as they had gone to the field to prevent the deceased party from digging a bore-well, instead of taking recourse to law. He would submit that the case in Crime No. 597 of 2009 was referred as 'mistake of fact' as the accused were the aggressors. Thus, according to him, the prosecution has come forward with clean hands and has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. Admittedly, the land in question was originally owned by P.W. 8. When P.W. 8 was the owner, the accused party were the cultivating tenants. This has been admitted by P.W. 8. The deceased party purchased the property from P.W. 8 subsequently. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. Admittedly, the land in question was originally owned by P.W. 8. When P.W. 8 was the owner, the accused party were the cultivating tenants. This has been admitted by P.W. 8. The deceased party purchased the property from P.W. 8 subsequently. It is needless to point out that despite the transfer of title, the cultivating tenant will continue to cultivate the land and he will have the right to be in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant, unless he is lawfully evicted. Here, in this case, the accused party were not lawfully evicted by the deceased from the possession of the land in question, instead, the deceased party had gone to the field and by force, they had started to dig a bore-well. P.W. 1 even in chief examination has stated that this dispute between the two groups had been pending for about two years. Thus, instead of taking recourse to law, the deceased party alone, had gone to the field so as to take possession by force. Therefore, it was lawful for the accused party, who had gone to the field, to prevent the deceased party from digging a bore-well. Thus, the accused party had the right of private defence of property. When the accused questioned the deceased party about their authority to dig the bore-well, there arose a quarrel between the two groups. 11. It is in evidence that in the said quarrel, the deceased and the first accused sustained injuries. As a matter of fact, the deceased had sustained two injuries on his head. P.W. 1 had sustained one injury on his head and two injuries on his hands. On the side of the accused party, the first accused sustained as many as four injuries, out of which, the first injury was on the left side of the head measuring 14 x 3 x 2 cms. The second injury was also on the head measuring 5 x 2 x 1 cm, which is also a cut injury. The third injury is again on the forehead, which is a lacerated injury. The fourth injury was on the hand. Thus, the first accused also sustained serious injuries, more particularly, the first injury was of a long size, measuring 14 cms. The third injury is again on the forehead, which is a lacerated injury. The fourth injury was on the hand. Thus, the first accused also sustained serious injuries, more particularly, the first injury was of a long size, measuring 14 cms. According to the accused, the said injuries were inflicted by the deceased party with aruval and that the deceased party were the aggressors. 12. In respect of the injuries sustained by the first accused, a case in Crime No. 597 of 2009 was registered under Sections 294(b) and 324 I.P.C. But, the injuries sustained by the first accused have not been explained away by the prosecution at all. The injuries sustained by the first accused are not minor in nature so as to not to attach any importance for the same. 13. In this regard, we may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, 1976 SCC (Crl) 671 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in an identical situation, has held that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused party. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the said Judgment, which reads as follows: "Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow; (i) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants It was further observed that; "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 alteration 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." 14. Applying the said observations of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, since the serious injuries numbering 4 sustained by the first accused have not been explained away, we have to hold that the prosecution has not come forward with true version and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have suppressed an important part of the occurrence. 15. Then comes the counter case in Crime No. 597 of 2009. It is the law that the Investigating Officer, who investigated both cases, should produce all the materials collected during investigation of both cases during trial. But, in this case, no documents, such as, complaint, First Information Report, etc. have been marked in evidence by the prosecution in respect of Crime No. 597 of 2009. Not even the Wound Certificate of the first accused has been marked. Though, P.W. 11 has stated that the counter case was referred as 'mistake of fact', even the final report has not been marked. Thus, it has become difficult for this Court to simply accept the version of P.W. 11 that the accused party were the aggressors. As we have already pointed out, there is enormous evidence to show that the prosecution party were the aggressors. But, by suppressing the materials collected during the investigation of the case in Crime No. 597 of 2009, the prosecution has rendered itself unbelievable as the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no option, except to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore the appellants are entitled for acquittal. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Tiruchirappalli, made in S.C. No. 198 of 2009, dated 15.02.2011, is set aside and they are acquitted. The fine amounts, if any, paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds executed by the appellants and the sureties shall stand terminated.