JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.- The judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-7-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Hassan, in S.C. No. 45 of 2006 is called in question in this appeal by the State. The accused were tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that there existed a dispute between the accused on the one side and P.W. 2 on the other with regard to the agricultural property; on the date of the incident i.e., on 26-10-2005 at 5.15 p.m., all the accused veiled P.W. 2 and assaulted him with clubs; P.W. 1 intervened in the matter and he was also assaulted by the accused; on that day, a Surveyor had come for surveying the disputed agricultural land and the accused were enraged by the act of P.W. 2 in getting the Surveyor for measuring the property; consequent upon such assault by the accused, P.Ws. 1 and 2 sustained simple injuries as found in the wound certificates-Exs. P. 5 and P. 6 respectively; the complaint came to be lodged by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P. 1 which came to be registered on 26-10-2005 at 11.00 p.m. in Crime No. 102 of 2005 of Yesaluru Police Station. The complaint came to be lodged in the hospital while P.W. 1 was taking treatment. P.W. 11-Head Constable recorded the complaint in the presence of P.W. 8-Doctor. Ultimately, P.W. 14-Sub-Inspector of Police of Yesaluru Police Station completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. The defence has produced certain material on record. They have examined two witnesses, both of whom are the doctors who treated accused 1 and 3 herein. Exs. D. 1 and D. 2 are the wound certificates pertaining to accused 1 and 3. D.W. 1 (Doctor) had suspected that accused 1 had sustained fracture and consequently, he referred accused 1 to higher medical centre. Unfortunately, the defence had not produced the subsequent medical records pertaining to accused 1. But the fact remains, and as is clear from the wound certificates-Exs. D. 1 and D. 2, as well as from the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, accused 1 and 3 also sustained injuries which are not negligible. 3. Unfortunately, the defence had not produced the subsequent medical records pertaining to accused 1. But the fact remains, and as is clear from the wound certificates-Exs. D. 1 and D. 2, as well as from the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, accused 1 and 3 also sustained injuries which are not negligible. 3. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor taking us through the material on record submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is sufficient to bring home guilt against the accused; accused had intention to commit the murder of P.W. 2 inasmuch as they came prepared with the clubs and chopper; the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are not proper and correct. Per contra, Sri Somashekar Angadi, learned Amicus Curiae appointed on behalf of the accused, however, has argued in support of the judgment of the Court below contending that the prosecution has failed to place on record the true facts inasmuch as it has suppressed the origin and genesis of the case; serious injuries sustained by accused 1 and 3 are not explained by the prosecution; looking to all material facts and circumstances, the Trial Court is justified in giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused while acquitting the accused. 4. P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Of them, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the injured witnesses. P.W. 1 has lodged the complaint. P.Ws. 5 to 7 are the witnesses for mahazar-Exs. P. 2 to P. 4. All of them have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 8 is the doctor who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the evening of 26-10-2005 and issued the wound certificates as per Exs. P. 5 and P. 6. He has also endorsed in the complaint-Ex. P. 1 lodged by P.W. 1 before the Head Constable-P.W. 11. P.W. 9 is the Head Constable, who registered the crime based on the complaint-Ex. P. 1. P.W. 10 is the Police Constable. He carried FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W. 11 is another Head Constable. He went to the hospital wherein P.W. 1 was admitted and recorded the statement as per Ex. P. 1-complaint and accordingly, handed over the same to P.W. 9 for its registration. P.W. 12 is another witness for mahazar-Ex. P. 2. P.W. 10 is the Police Constable. He carried FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W. 11 is another Head Constable. He went to the hospital wherein P.W. 1 was admitted and recorded the statement as per Ex. P. 1-complaint and accordingly, handed over the same to P.W. 9 for its registration. P.W. 12 is another witness for mahazar-Ex. P. 2. He has also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 13 is the doctor who produced the case sheet of P.W. 2 maintained by the hospital as per Ex. P. 10. P.W. 14 is the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. D.Ws. 1 and 2 are the doctors examined on behalf of defence to show that accused 1 and 3 also sustained certain injuries in the very incident which are of some seriousness. They have produced the wound certificates-Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. 5. We have meticulously perused the material on record and the judgment of the Court below. We find that the Trial Court has assigned the valid reasons for coming to the conclusion. It has considered each and every aspect of the matter while coming to the conclusion. The evidence of each of the witnesses is assessed by the Trial Court with all seriousness while coming to the conclusion. 6. Looking to the injury certificates-Exs. D. 1 and D. 2, more particularly Ex. D. 1 and the evidence of D.W. 1 who treated Thammegowda (accused 1 in the matter on hand) and the evidence of the prosecution more particularly, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the wound certificates-Exs. P. 5 and P. 6, it is clear that it was a free fight between the two groups which occurred in the evening of 26-10-2005. Undisputedly and even according to the case of prosecution, the dispute has arisen because of the agricultural land. Though it is the case of prosecution in the present case that the accused had assaulted-P.Ws. 1 and 2 with choppers, none of the injuries sustained by them could be said to have been caused by the sharp cutting weapon. The doctors who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2 have also admitted that such injuries may be caused by the clubs or by falling on the ground. The injuries sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the contusions and cut lacerated wounds. All are simple in nature. The doctors who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2 have also admitted that such injuries may be caused by the clubs or by falling on the ground. The injuries sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the contusions and cut lacerated wounds. All are simple in nature. Immediately after the incident, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were admitted to the hospital and were treated. We have also mentioned that accused 1 and 3 had sustained the injuries. Accused had sustained injuries in the very incident in which P.Ws. 1 and 2 had sustained the injuries. Accused 1 had also taken treatment immediately after the incident in question. While admitting, accused 1 herein has given history, as is clear from Ex. D. 1, that he was assaulted by Puttaraju (P.W. 2) and Hemavathi (P.W. 3), Lokesha (P.W. 1), Basavaraju (P.W. 4) and another Suhas. Thus, it is clear that all the four eyewitnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 4 had allegedly assaulted accused 1. It is also clear from Ex. D. 1 that D.W. 1 had suspected fracture and accordingly, accused 1 was referred to the higher medical centre. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the accused could not have been suppressed by the prosecution. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, we agree with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court that the prosecution has not come up with the true facts before the Court; the place of incident, the nature of incident, the weapons used, the injuries sustained and the time of incident, are all suppressed by the prosecution. 8. Though it is the case of prosecution that choppers were seized at the instance of accused 1, P.W. 6 has admitted that he has seen the choppers in the police jeep i.e. much prior to the said seizure of M.O. 1. 9. It is by now well-settled that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused will lead to the inference which is adverse to the prosecution. 9. It is by now well-settled that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused will lead to the inference which is adverse to the prosecution. The Court can draw inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and thus has not presented the true version before the Court; the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of accused are lying on most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; 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. The omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witness or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of prosecution one. P.W. 3 is the wife of P.Ws. 2 and 4 is the father of P.W. 3. Thus, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are of the same family. P.W. 1 is the close friend of P.W. 2. Thus, all these witnesses are closely connected with each other. They are all interested in the case of prosecution and inimical towards the accused. Since the defence has given the version which competes in probability with that of the case of prosecution and as the defence is successful in producing the relevant records before the Court to prove its case, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court is justified in observing that non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused is the important lacuna or infirmity in the case of prosecution. It is no doubt true that the injuries sustained by the accused are not minor or superficial in nature. On the other hand, the injuries sustained by the accused are of more serious in nature than the injuries sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2. Since the occurrence has taken place in the course of the fight between the two groups and as there were more severe injuries caused on the person of the accused than the eye-witnesses, the injuries sustained by the victim cannot be attributed to any of the accused specifically, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has not come up with the true story before the Court. Since certain facts are suppressed by the prosecution, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was an aggressor. 10. On reconsidering the entire material on record, we are of the clear opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views which may be taken under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Somashekar Angadi, learned Amicus Curiae. Hence, the Registry is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to learned Amicus Curiae.