JUDGMENT : (The judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused Nos. 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 41 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri District. Including the appellants, there were totally four accused in the present case in Cr.No.262 of 2009. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 as detailed below:- Sl. No. Charge No. Rank of Accused Charged for the Offence 1. Charge No.1 Accused No.1 to 3 U/s. 307 IPC 2. Charge No.2 Accused No.4 U/s.307 r/w.34 IPC 3. Charge No.3 Accused No.1 U/s 324 IPC 4. Charge No.4 Accused No.4 U/s.324 r/w.34 IPC 5. Charge No.5 Accused No.3 U/s.323 IPC (Three Counts) 6. Charge No.6 Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 U/s.323 r/w.34 IPC (Three Counts) 7. Charge No.7 Accused Nos. 1 & 3 U/s.302 IPC 8. Charge No.8 Accused Nos. 2 & 4 U/s.302 r/w. 34 IPC By judgment, dated 27.11.2012, the Trial Court convicted these two appellants alone and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 4. The Trial Court convicted the 1st appellant/1st accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and convicted the 2nd appellant/3rd accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 27.11.2012, the appellants/ accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :- (i) The deceased in this case was one Muniappa. P.Ws.1 to 3, viz., Murugesan, Subramani and Amutha respectively, are his family members. There was a long standing enmity between the family of the accused and that of the deceased in respect of a pathway dispute. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii) It is alleged that on 11.10.2009, P.W.1-Murugesan, who is the brother's son of the deceased, had brought sand in a tractor and unloaded the same by the side of the house of the deceased. This was not to the liking of the deceased. Thereafter, on the same day, around 9.00 p.m., when P.Ws. (ii) It is alleged that on 11.10.2009, P.W.1-Murugesan, who is the brother's son of the deceased, had brought sand in a tractor and unloaded the same by the side of the house of the deceased. This was not to the liking of the deceased. Thereafter, on the same day, around 9.00 p.m., when P.Ws. 1 to 3 were nearing the house of the deceased, at that time, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the house of the deceased. It is further alleged that the 1st accused was in possession of an iron rod. The accused Nos.2 and 3 had wooden logs. The accused No.4 did not have any weapon in her hands. On reaching the place of occurrence, it is alleged that the 1st accused had attacked the deceased with the iron rod on his head and the 3rd accused attacked him with wooden log. The deceased sustained injuries on his head and fell down in a pool of blood. (iii) The 1st accused again attacked P.W.1-Murugesan with the iron rod on his head and caused injuries. The 1st accused in the course of the same transaction, attacked P.W.2-Subramani with the iron rod on his head and caused injuries. The 3rd accused attacked P.W.10-Muniraj and caused injuries on him. In the same occurrence, P.W.4-Mukundha also sustained injuries at the hands of the 3rd accused. Thus, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 10 sustained injuries. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Hosur, for treatment. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 10 were taken to the Government Hospital at Hosur, where they were treated and later on, they were discharged. (iv) On 11.10.2009, at about 9.40 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh, Government Hospital at Hosur, examined P.W.1-Murugesan and he found the following injuries on him:- "Injuries: 1. Laceration parietal area of scalp 7 x 3 x 1 cm with bleeding. 2. Laceration left knee for 3 x 2 cm. 3. Complaint of pain in left shoulder. 4. Contusion right thigh 2 x 1 cm". Ex.P.6 is the Accident Register. The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. (v) On the same day, at about 9.45 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.2-Subramani, and he found the following injuries on him:- "Injuries:- 1. Laceration (L) parietal area of scalp 5 x 3 x 1 cm with bleeding. 2. Ex.P.6 is the Accident Register. The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. (v) On the same day, at about 9.45 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.2-Subramani, and he found the following injuries on him:- "Injuries:- 1. Laceration (L) parietal area of scalp 5 x 3 x 1 cm with bleeding. 2. Contusion (L) arm 3 x 2 cm" Ex.P.8 is the Accident Register. The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 are simple in nature. (vi) On the same day, at about 10.05 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.3-Amutha and he found the following injuries on her:- "Injuries:- 1. Abrasion on left wrist 3 x 2 cm 2. Complaint of pain on right shoulder" Ex.P.9 is the Accident Register. The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.3 are simple in nature. (vii) On the same day, at about 11.20 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.4-Mukundha and he found the following injuries on him:- "Injuries: 1. Laceration occipital area of scalp 4 x 3 x 1 cm. 2. Contusion left forearm 4 x 3 cm. 3. Abrasion right forearm 4 x 2 cm". Ex.P.5 is the Accident Register. The Doctor gave opinion that the injury No.2 alone is grievous in nature, while the other injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple in nature. (viii) On the same day, at about 10.45 p.m., P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh examined P.W.10-Muniraj and he found the following injuries on him:- "Injuries:- 1. Abrasion on right hand dorso 3 x 2 cm 2. Tenderness on left knee joint 3. Abrasion on left wrist 2 x 1 cm" Ex.P.7 is the Accident Register. The Doctor gave opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.10 are simple in nature. (ix) Thereafter, P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh gave an intimation to the police in respect of the occurrence. P.W.14-Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the intimation from the hospital, rushed to the hospital, and recorded the statement of P.W.1-Murugesan. On returning to the Police Station, on 11.10.2009, at 11.00 p.m., he registered a case in Crime No.262 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC. Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. He forwarded both the documents to Court. (x) P.W.14-Mr.Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. He forwarded both the documents to Court. (x) P.W.14-Mr.Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. On the next day, i.e., on 12.10.2009, at 6.30 a.m., he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and he also prepared Rough Sketch (Ex.P.15) showing the place of occurrence. Then, P.W.14 went to the hospital, he examined all the injured witnesses. He arrested the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 viz., Chandiran, Gopal and Radha respectively, on 12.10.2009, at 11.00 a.m. near Anchettipalli Bus Stand. On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the iron rod and wooden logs. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the said place. He recovered M.O.1-iron rod and M.Os.2 and 3-wooden logs under a Mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court. (xi) On 25.10.2009, at about 11.30 a.m., the victim Muniappa, who was taking treatment in the hospital died. Therefore, P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police, altered the offence into one under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the Alteration Report under Ex.P.16 to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (xii) P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.263 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC on the complaint of the 4th accused/Radha against the deceased party. P.W.14 filed a negative report closing the said case as a false case on 15.10.2009. (xiii) P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police took up the case of investigation. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for postmortem. P.W.12-Dr.Dhamayandhi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 25.10.2009 at 3.00 p.m., and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :- "Appearances found at the post-mortem:- Body of male lying on its back with both eyes absent (eye donated) Mount closed, Tongue inside the mouth. White colour froth discharge from mouth. No evidence of external injuries. Internal Examination:- Hyoid bone intact Ribs- Intact Heart Weight 190 grams Lungs Weight - Right 410 grams, Left 390 grams. White colour froth discharge from mouth. No evidence of external injuries. Internal Examination:- Hyoid bone intact Ribs- Intact Heart Weight 190 grams Lungs Weight - Right 410 grams, Left 390 grams. C/s. congested liver weight 1400 gms C/s. congested stomach contain black colour food particles about 100 ml. Kidney weight 130 c/s. Congested Spleen weight 140 grams C/s. Congested Bladder full Scalp subdural hematoma on right frontal temporal bone. Brain subdural hematoma on right side of non-temporal bone 800 grams C/s. Congested Base of skull Intact." Ex.P.12 is the Postmortem Certificate. The Doctor gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to the vital organ brain. (xiv) P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police made a request to the Court to forward the Material Objects for chemical examination. The report revealed that there were bloodstains on all Material Objects including the iron rod. On completing the investigation, finally, he laid chargesheet against the accused. (xv) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the paragraph No.1 of this judgment. All the accused denied the same as false. During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 24 documents and 8 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the injured eye witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have stated about the entire occurrence. P.W. 2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.Ws.5 and 6 are also eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.7 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.15) prepared on the spot. P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and consequential recovery of the iron rod and wooden logs. P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the 3rd accused. P.W.10 is an yet another injured witness, but, he has turned hostile. P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh has spoken about the treatment given to the injured witnesses and the deceased. P.W.12-Dr.Damayandhi has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.14-Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of case. P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done and final report filed. P.W.11-Dr.Mahesh has spoken about the treatment given to the injured witnesses and the deceased. P.W.12-Dr.Damayandhi has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.14-Murugan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of case. P.W.15-T.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done and final report filed. (xvi) When the accused Nos.1 to 4 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false. According to the accused Nos.1 to 4, the deceased party were the aggressors and they attacked the prosecution party and caused injuries. According to the accused Nos.1 to 4, a counter case registered on the complaint of the 4th accused/Radha was not investigated properly. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court found the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty and convicted them accordingly. That is how, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are now before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also we have perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence inasmuch as the counter case in Crime No.263 of 2009 was not investigated properly, the injury sustained by the 4th accused has not been properly explained by the prosecution. He would further submit that the records pertaining to Crime No.263 of 2009 have been completely suppressed. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. He would submit that there are as many as five injured eye witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 1 to 4 and P.W.10, out of whom, except P.Ws.2 and 10, all others have spoken about the occurrence vividly, there is no reason to reject the evidence of these injured eye witnesses. He would further submit that the case in Crime No.263 of 2009 was investigated properly by P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police and the same was referred to as "Mistake of Fact". Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the contention that the counter case was not investigated properly is not correct. He would further submit that the case in Crime No.263 of 2009 was investigated properly by P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police and the same was referred to as "Mistake of Fact". Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the contention that the counter case was not investigated properly is not correct. According to him, the well considered judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Trial Court needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 6. We have considered the above submissions. 7. Admittedly, the occurrence was on 11.10.2009, at 9.00 p.m. On the complaint made by P.W.1, the present case in Crime No.262 of 2009 was registered and the same was investigated initially by P.W.14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. There is no controversy before this Court that in the very same occurrence, the 4th accused, by name, Radha, also sustained injuries. On the complaint of the 4th accused, a counter case was registered in Crime No.263 of 2009 by P.W.14 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC. P.W.14 would state that the said case in Crime No.263 of 2009 was investigated properly and since the same was found to be false, a negative report was filed before the Magistrate Court, but, unfortunately, none of the documents, like the First Information Report, Wound Certificate of 4th accused, the Observation Mahazar etc., have neither been marked nor proved in evidence, through the present case. It is seen that the records pertaining to Crime No.263 of 2009 have been completely suppressed. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterating the procedure to be followed in the matter of investigation of cases in counter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that both cases should be investigated simultaneously by one and the same Investigating Officer and on completing the investigation, he should file reports in both the cases. This has been reiterated in Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No.588A, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. But, in the instant case, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, has stated that he did not investigate the case in Crime No.263 of 2009 at all. Curiously, the investigation in Crime No.263 of 2009 was conducted by P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, whereas the investigation of the present case in Crime No.262 of 2009 was investigated by the Inspector of Police. Curiously, the investigation in Crime No.263 of 2009 was conducted by P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, whereas the investigation of the present case in Crime No.262 of 2009 was investigated by the Inspector of Police. Thus, it is crystal clear that two different Investigating Officers were investigating the case and two different reports were stated to have been given by them. 8. The fact whether the case in Crime No.263 of 2009 was earlier investigated and whether any such final report was filed before the Magistrate and if so, what was the Judicial Order passed by the Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C., have not been placed before this Court. That is the reason why we find much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has suppressed the case in Crime No.263 of 2009. Further, though, it is stated that the 4th accused also sustained injuries in the same occurrence, neither, the injured eye witnesses nor the other witnesses have explained the injuries sustained by the 4th accused. From these facts, it is identifiable that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. 9. Further, though, it is stated that the 4th accused also sustained injuries in the same occurrence, neither, the injured eye witnesses nor the other witnesses have explained the injuries sustained by the 4th accused. From these facts, it is identifiable that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. 9. In this regard, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 394, Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar, wherein, in an identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.12 as follows:- "12.......It seems to us 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 altercation 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." In the decision cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries sustained by the accused, the inference is that the eye witnesses to the occurrence have suppressed an important part of the occurrence and therefore, it is not possible or safe to believe their evidence. 10. Applying the above said principle to the facts of the present case, we have to hold that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version. The prosecution witnesses have suppressed an important part of the occurrence by declining to explain the injuries sustained by the 4th accused. 11. If we look into the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, it is crystal clear that absolutely, there is no explanation in respect of the injuries sustained by the 4th accused at all. The prosecution witnesses have suppressed an important part of the occurrence by declining to explain the injuries sustained by the 4th accused. 11. If we look into the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, it is crystal clear that absolutely, there is no explanation in respect of the injuries sustained by the 4th accused at all. As we have already concluded there was no proper investigation done in respect of Crime No.263 of 2009, and we have further noticed that the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.263 of 2009 have been suppressed for the reason best known to the prosecution. Above all, the procedure in the matter of investigation of a case in counter has not been followed by the Investigating Officer, which caused prejudice to the accused. For all these reasons, we have to necessarily conclude that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence and thus, the prosecution has supressed the true facts from the eyes of this Court. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. 13. In the result, i. the Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Trial Court in S.C.No. 41 of 2010, dated 27.11.2012, are set aside and the appellants are acquitted; ii. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them. iii. The bail bond, if any executed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3, shall stand discharged.