JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.351 of 2011 are the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.352 of 2011 are the accused Nos.3 5, & 9 in S.C.No.104 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. Totally, including these appellants, there were 10 accused. There was yet another accused by name Mr.Preamkumar. Since Mr.Preamkumar was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law, he was dealt with separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, the accused 1 to 10 alone faced the trial before the lower Court. 2. The lower Court framed as many as 5 charges against the accused as detailed below: Charge Nos. Accused Nos. Penal Provisions 1 1 to 10 148 IPC 2 1 and 2 302 IPC 3 3, 5 and 9 324 IPC 4 3 to 10 302 r/w 149 IPC 5 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 324 r/w 149 IPC By judgment dated 22.11.2011, the trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (no default sentence was imposed). The trial Court has convicted the accused Nos.3, 5 and 9 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Mariappan. He was a resident of Kandiapuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk. The father-in-law of PW1 and the deceased are brothers. PW2 is the son of the deceased. PW3 is the nephew of the deceased. PW4 is the grandson of the deceased. They were all residing in Kandiapuram village. The accused also belonged to the same village. Three months prior to the occurrence, one of the relatives of both the parties by name yet another Mariappan died. The accused party and the prosecution party participated in the last rites conducted in the grave yard. At that time, suddenly there arose a quarrel between two groups. The accused also belonged to the same village. Three months prior to the occurrence, one of the relatives of both the parties by name yet another Mariappan died. The accused party and the prosecution party participated in the last rites conducted in the grave yard. At that time, suddenly there arose a quarrel between two groups. In the said quarrel, It is alleged that the accused party attacked one Marisamy and Sathish, who belonged to the deceased party. A criminal case was registered in connection with the same and the said case, ultimately, ended in acquittal. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence, as both the families became inimical towards each other. (b) On 13.06.2007, it is alleged that the deceased and PWs. 1 to 3 were sitting on the pial of the house of the deceased. At that time, it is alleged that all the accused, including the juvenile accused, came to their house all armed with weapons and the accused No.1 attacked the deceased with iron rod on the head of the deceased and the accused No.2 attacked him with stick on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down sustaining serious injuries. Then, the accused No.5 attacked PW2 with a stick on his head. Similarly, juvenile accused - Preamkumar also attacked him with a stick on his head. PW2 also sustained injuries. Then, the accused No.3 attacked PW3 with a stick on his head. PW3 sustained an injury. Then, the juvenile accused and the 9th accused attacked PW1 with sticks on his head and the other parts of the body. He also sustained injuries. PW4 witnessed the occurrence. They raised alarm which attracted the neighbours. All the 10 accused, along with juvenile accused, fled away from the scene of occurrence. (c) PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased were taken to the Government Hospital at Sattur. On examining the deceased, PW5 - Dr.Rani found a contusion measuring 4 x 4 cm on the head of the deceased and forwarded him immediately to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai for treatment. On the same day, at 8.45 p.m., she examined PW2. She found a lacerated wound on the right parietal region measuring 3x 0.5 x 0.5 cm with bleeding. Ex.P2 is the Accident Register. On the same day, at 8.45 p.m., she examined PW2. She found a lacerated wound on the right parietal region measuring 3x 0.5 x 0.5 cm with bleeding. Ex.P2 is the Accident Register. Then, at 11.45 p.m., she examined PW1 - Mayandi and found the following injuries: “1) Lacerated wound on the frontal region 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. 2) Lacerated wound in the occipital region 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.” Ex.P3 is the Accident Register. At 11.50 p.m. she examined PW3 and found the following injuries; “1). Lacerated wound on the right side of forehead measuring 6 x 2 x 0.5 cm with bleeding. 2) Contusion on the right shoulder region? Fracture.” Ex.P4 is the Accident Register. Then, she forwarded all the three injured to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar. PW6 – Dr.Maheswari, attached to Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, examined PW3 at 12.30 a.m. on 14.06.2007 and found that he had sustained fracture on the right clavicle. (d) While in the hospital, the deceased died at 8.00 a.m. on 14.06.2007. PW12 altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the alteration report Ex.P23 to the Court. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 2.00 p.m. to 3.45 p.m. in the presence of Panchayators. He, then, forwarded the body for postmortem. (e) PW7 - Dr.Natarajan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He found the following injuries: “1) Sutured laceration 8 x 0.5 cms x bone deep noted on left parieto temporal region, 5 cms above the left ear. 2) Contusion noted on the entire right upper eyelid. On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: Contusion of scallop 15 x 8 cms noted on left parieto temporal region and 12 x 7 cms noted on mid occipital region. Left temporals muscles in bruised. Fissure fracture 6 ms in length noted on left temporal bone. Subdural haematoma 7x5x 0.5 cms noted over left parieto temporal lobe of brain. Diffused subdural haemorrhage, subdarachnoid haemorrhage noted on both cerebral hemispheres, laceration 7 x 1 x 1 cms noted in he left parieto temporal lobe of brain. Fracture base of skull noted on the anterior and middle cranial fossa on left side.” Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries. (f) PW12 examined PWs.1 to 4 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Fracture base of skull noted on the anterior and middle cranial fossa on left side.” Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries. (f) PW12 examined PWs.1 to 4 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. On 15.06.2007, near Eelayiram Pannai Mariammal Kovil Temple at 2.00 p.m. he arrested the juvenile accused, A8 and A10 in the presence of witnesses. On the confession made by the juvenile accused, a wooden log was recovered from the hide out. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. On 30.06.2007, he arrested the accused Nos.4, 5, 9, 6 and 7 at the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar. He examined them and recorded their statements. A5 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden logs. In pursuance of the same, MO.2 to 6 were recovered from the hide out. In the confession of the ninth accused, he made a disclosure statement as to where he had hidden a wooden log. The same was also recovered under a mahazar. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. The accused 1 and 2 had surrendered before the Court. He took police custody and on their confession also wooden logs were recovered. On completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accused. (g) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the second paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 31 documents and 15 materials objects were marked. (h) Out to the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 4 are the eyewitnesses of whom PWs.1 to 3 are the injured eyewitnesses. PW5 – Dr. Rani has spoken about her examination on the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 at the Government Hospital, Sattur and the treatment given by her. PW6 has stated that on examining PW3, she found a fracture on the left clavicle. PW7 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. PW8 is the forensic expert, who has stated that on examination, she found bloodstains on the material objects. PW6 has stated that on examining PW3, she found a fracture on the left clavicle. PW7 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. PW8 is the forensic expert, who has stated that on examination, she found bloodstains on the material objects. PW9 has spoken about the confession of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the consequential recovery of the wooden logs. PW10 has spoken about the arrest of the third accused and the recovery of the material objects. PW11 has also spoken about the arrest of the accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 at the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar and the other facts. PW12 has spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done. (i) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on their side. They pleaded that the accused 3 to 8 and 10 and the juvenile accused - Preamkumar had sustained serious injuries in the very same occurrence. According to the defence, the prosecution party were the aggressor and they only attacked them. Thus, they pleaded innocence. (j) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted these appellants alone and that is how they are before this Court with these appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands, inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to do the investigation in the case in Crime No.65 of 2007 against the prosecution party in proper perspective. Thus, the prosecution has failed to come forward with clean hands. He would further submit that the prosecution party were the aggressors. For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose these appeals. According to him, it is true that 8 accused sustained injuries out of whom five had sustained grievous injuries. He would further submit that the prosecution party were the aggressors. For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose these appeals. According to him, it is true that 8 accused sustained injuries out of whom five had sustained grievous injuries. He would further submit that the non explanation of these injuries would not loom large in this case, as the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused party were the aggressors. He would further submit that so far as the case in Crime No.65 of 2007 is concerned, the same was referred to as 'mistake of fact' as the accused were the aggressors. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there are no reasons to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 7. We have considered the above submissions. 8. Admittedly, out of 11 accused, including the juvenile accused, 8 persons had sustained injuries in the very same occurrence, of whom five accused had sustained grievous hurts and those injuries were all on vital parts. There is no denial of fact that the injuries were sustained by them only in the very same occurrence. On the side of the prosecution party, four members viz., the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by PW3 was of-course grievous. In respect of the injuries sustained by the accused party, a case in Crime No.65 of 2007 was registered, in which PWs.1 to 4 and others were the accused. But, unfortunately, the said case was not investigated properly. The injuries sustained by the accused have not been explained away by the prosecution at all. Though it is stated by PW12 that the case in Crime No.65 of 2007 was referred to as 'mistake of fact' as the accused party were the aggressors, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said conclusion. No records, such as the FIR, wound certificate of the accused and the other materials, collected during the investigation of the case in Crime No.65 of 2007 were brought in evidence in this case. 9. In this regard, we may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others, Vs. No records, such as the FIR, wound certificate of the accused and the other materials, collected during the investigation of the case in Crime No.65 of 2007 were brought in evidence in this case. 9. In this regard, we may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others, Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 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 also. 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." 10. Applying the same, in the instant case, we have no option but to hold that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence, because none of the injuries sustained by the eight accused in the case has been explained away by the prosecution. The counter case in Crime No.65 of 2007 was not investigated properly. Except the ipsi dixit statement of PW12 that the same was investigated, there is no material to prove the same. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands. The origin of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. The counter case in Crime No.65 of 2007 was not investigated properly. Except the ipsi dixit statement of PW12 that the same was investigated, there is no material to prove the same. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands. The origin of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. There is also no material to substantiate the case of the prosecution that the accused were the aggressors. In such view of the matter, the appellants/accused are entitled for acquittal. 11. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in S.C.No.104 of 2008 is set aside and they are acquitted. The bail bond, if any, executed by them shall stand terminated. The fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded.