JUDGMENT [JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.310 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges against the appellant, as detailed below. Charge Penal Provisions 1. 294(b) IPC 2. 302 IPC By Judgment dated 14.09.2012, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed below:- Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 294(b) IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for three months Rs.500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.M.Sivanantham. He was a resident of T.Udaiyavaiyal Village. For quite some time, he was working in Thiruppur in a private mill. To celebrate Deepavali, in the month of October 2008, the deceased had come to his native place. The accused is also a resident of the same village. The house of the accused is situated two to three houses away from the house of the deceased. The deceased was the cousin of the accused. 2.1. On 29.10.2008, at about 06.30 AM, the accused had beaten up his father, mother and his wife at his house. They raised alarm. The deceased, with good intention to pacify the accused, went the house of the accused. On reaching the house of the accused, the deceased shouted at the accused and requested him to stop beating his family members. The accused warned the deceased that he should not involve in his family affairs. Since the accused was fully drunk, the deceased poured water on him and returned back to his house. Then, he was getting ready to go to Thiruppur, as Deepavali celebration was over three days before. Around 07.00 PM, the accused came to the house of the deceased. The deceased was standing in front of his house. PW-1, the brother of the deceased, was also standing by his side. Suddenly, the accused attacked the deceased with crowbar on the back of his head. The deceased fell down. The accused, immediately, ran away from the place of occurrence. The deceased was standing in front of his house. PW-1, the brother of the deceased, was also standing by his side. Suddenly, the accused attacked the deceased with crowbar on the back of his head. The deceased fell down. The accused, immediately, ran away from the place of occurrence. PW-1 took the deceased in a TVS XL Motorcycle with the help of another to Dr.M.Elumalai [PW-7]. The doctor at Devakottai gave first aid and instructed him to rush the deceased to the Government Hospital. Therefore, PW-1 took him to the Government Hospital, Devakottai. 2.2. The doctor, at the Government Hospital at Devakottai, after examining the deceased, wanted PW-1 to immediately rush him to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Accordingly, PW-1 rushed the deceased to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. 2.3. At 01.50 PM, on 30.10.2008, PW-8 conducted an emergency surgery on the deceased. But, despite best efforts taken by the doctor, on 01.11.2008, at about 12.20 AM, the deceased died. As soon as the deceased was admitted in the hospital, intimation was given to the police regarding the same. On getting intimation from the hospital, PW-9, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Devakottai Town Police Station, at 10.00 AM, on 30.10.2008, rushed to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. The deceased was then unconscious. Therefore, he obtained a statement from PW-1 under EXP1. On returning to the Police Station, he registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2008, under Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P13 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 2.4. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-11 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-4 and another witness. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, he recovered the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence, which were bloodstained. He examined PW-1 to PW-5 and few more witnesses. After getting intimation from the hospital that the deceased passed away, PW-11 altered the case into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P18 is the alteration report. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. He examined PW-1 to PW-5 and few more witnesses. After getting intimation from the hospital that the deceased passed away, PW-11 altered the case into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P18 is the alteration report. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. EX-P19 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 2.5. PW-10 -Dr.G.Natarajan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, at 11.30 AM, on 01.11.2008. He noticed the following injuries:- "On dissection of scalp, skull & dura: Contusion scalp 28 X 15 cms noted on the right fronto, parieto termporo bioccipital region. Bony flap of 10 X 6 cms found missing in the right parieto temporal region. Depressed fracture of skull measuring 6 X 3 cms noted over mid occipital region. Diffused subdural haemorrhage & subarachnoid harmorrhage noted over both cerebral hemispheres. Laceration 6 X 3 X 2 cms noted on the right occipital lobe of brain. Cerebrospinal fluid increased in volume and bloodstained". EX-P15 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio cerebral injuries. 2.6. During the course of investigation, on 06.11.2008, at 04.00 PM, PW-11 arrested the accused at Therappurpandapill Village in the presence of PW-5 and another witness. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the crowbar, a lungi and a shirt. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced MO-1 crowbar, MO-4 -a lungi and MO-5 -a shirt. PW-11 recovered the same under a mahazer. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court with a request to forward the same for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood of 'A' group on all the material objects, including the crowbar. PW-11 collected the medical records pertaining to the deceased and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.7. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined, 21 documents and 7 material objects were marked. 2.8. 2.7. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined, 21 documents and 7 material objects were marked. 2.8. Out of the said 11 witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, the brother and father of the deceased, respectively, claim to have witnessed the occurrence. They have spoken vividly about the entire occurrence. PW-3 is a neighbour and he has also spoken about the entire occurrence. PW-4 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazer and the rough sketch and also the recovery of the material objects. PW-5 has stated that he handed over the dress material worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence to the police. PW-6, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, has spoken about the fact that he recorded the statement of PW-1, PW-2 and few more witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW-7 -Dr.M.Elumalai has stated that on 29.10.2008, at 09.30 PM, at his private hospital, he examined the deceased. He told that the deceased was attacked with a crowbar. Since his condition was serious, he referred the deceased to the Government Hospital at Devakottai. PW-8 -Dr.J.Saravanan has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. He has stated that the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 12.20 AM, on 01.11.2008. PW-9, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of PW-1. PW-10 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW-11 has spoken about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of the final report. 2.9. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against him, he denied the same as false. On the side of the accused, two documents were marked, viz., intimation given regarding the admission of the accused in the hospital [EX-D1] and the Accident Register [EX-D2]. His defence was a total denial. According to him, he sustained injuries in the very same occurrence. In respect of the same, a criminal case in Crime No.305 of 2008 was registered. On the side of the accused, two documents were marked, viz., intimation given regarding the admission of the accused in the hospital [EX-D1] and the Accident Register [EX-D2]. His defence was a total denial. According to him, he sustained injuries in the very same occurrence. In respect of the same, a criminal case in Crime No.305 of 2008 was registered. According to the accused, the said counter case was not investigated properly and the true version of the occurrence has not been placed before the Court. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the occurrence and thus, the prosecution has not come forward with the clean hands. The learned counsel would further submit that in the very same occurrence, the accused also sustained injuries and on the complaint made by him, a case in Crime No.305 of 2008 was registered. PW-11 has admitted that he investigated the case in Crime No.305 of 2008 also. But, unfortunately, neither the First Information Report, nor any other document, including the medical records pertaining to the accused have been placed before this Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, though PW-11 has investigated the case in Crime No. 305 of 2008, he has closed the same as mistake of fact. In order to substantiate the same, no materials have been placed on record. The learned counsel would further submit that the injuries sustained by the accused in the very same occurrence have also not been explained away by the prosecution. The eye-witnesses have also not stated anything about the injuries sustained by the accused and they are suppressing an important part of the occurrence. They have not come forward with the true version of the occurrence involving the attack made on the accused party also, the learned counsel contended. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Criminal Appeal. They have not come forward with the true version of the occurrence involving the attack made on the accused party also, the learned counsel contended. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Criminal Appeal. According to him, the eye-witness account of PW-1 and PW-3 are cogent and convincing, which would go a long way to show that it was this accused, who alone caused the death of the deceased. Though it is true that the accused also sustained injury in the very same occurrence, the same has been explained away by these eye-witnesses. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the offence committed by the accused would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. We have considered the above submissions. 7. Admittedly, in the course of the same transaction and in the same occurrence, the accused had also sustained injuries. A perusal of EX-D2 would go to show that the injuries sustained by the accused were also serious injuries on vital parts. When the prosecution witnesses, who belong to the same village, have spoken about the each and every overt act of the accused, thereby explaining every injury sustained by the prosecution party, they are expected to speak in the same vigour about the injuries sustained by the accused party also. But, they have not stated anything about the injuries found on the accused party. This would only go to give an impression that PW-1 and PW-2 are not reliable, as they are suppressing an important part of the occurrence and they have not come forward with true version of the occurrence involving the attack made on the accused party also. 8. 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. 8. 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; (i). 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." Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has suppressed the material part of the occurrence and the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. The origin of the occurrence has not been clearly established by the prosecution. In such view of the matter, it is very difficult to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 9. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by Judgment dated 14.09.2012 made in S.C.No.310 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand terminated.