JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants were tried for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and found guilty by the learned Trial Court and thereby imposed a sentence of 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default the accused has to undergo 3 months of imprisonment. 2. The First Information Report in Crime No.257 of 2003 was originally registered against four persons and the same was charge sheeted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, r/w 34 of IPC after the investigation against four persons. Thereafter, the said case was split up against the 1st accused namely Balamurugan in P.R.C.No.40 of 2005 and the said case was not committed for trial. However, as for as the other accused are concerned, the case was taken on file by the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Tract Court No.2), Pattukottai against other accused in S.C.No.192 of 2005. 3. Before the learned Trial Court to prove the case, the prosecution examined PW’s 1 to 12, marked Exs-P1 to P18 and also produced Material Objects 1 to 7. Further, on behalf of the accused no one was examined as witness and no document and material object was marked and produced respectively. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused were found guilty as aforesaid. 4. Feeling aggrieved over the judgment of conviction, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal to set-aside the judgment of conviction. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the allegation of the prosecution against the accused in S.C.No.192 of 2005 is that due to previous motive between the accused and the deceased family, on 19.10.2003 at about 05.00 a.m., when the deceased along with his family members were going to fishing, the appellants along with two accused wrongfully restrained the deceased and his family members in front of Muneeswaran Kovil. Further, the allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased was assaulted on his back head by the 1st accused by using wooden stick and the son of the deceased namely Chinnayan was stabbed by the 2nd accused by using knife, while he attempted to rescue the deceased. Further, another son of the deceased namely Palanivel was assaulted by the 3rd accused by using sickle. 6. Further, another son of the deceased namely Palanivel was assaulted by the 3rd accused by using sickle. 6. The learned Counsel appeared for the appellants would further contend that the trial Court did not consider the evidence of PW-11 who gave treatment to the PW-1/Defacto-Complainant that he sustained cut injuries at his left chest and right side back head, but the PW-1/Defacto-Complainant deposed in his examination as well as complaint lodged before the police that he was stabbed by the 2nd accused by using knife. But, the trial Court has not considered the material point that the cut injury is entirely different from stab injury. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the PW-7 who deposed about the confession statement given by the accused to the police and about the recovery of materials that is M.O-1 to 3. But in his cross examination he deposed as below: “Any Other Language” 7. So, the recovery of weapon used for the alleged occurrence itself is not proved by the prosecution and the same was also dealt by the trial Court as above. Further, the learned Counsel for the appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of place of occurrence, the PW-11 deposed when he was on duty on 09.10.2003 at about 07.30 a.m., the PW-1 came to treatment and informed before the PW-11 as if he was assaulted by four know persons in front of his house. But, in the First Information Report and in his chief examination he stated that he was assaulted in front of one Muneeswaran Kovil by the A-2 in this case. So, the statement of PW-1 is materially self-contradictory in respect of place of occurrence, but the same was not properly considered by the trial Court. 8. Apart from that it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence but mistakenly found the Appellant/Accused as guilty, hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that as far as PW-1 to PW-3 are eye witnesses and they categorically deposed about the place of occurrence, time and the injuries sustained by all the witnesses without any contradiction. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that as far as PW-1 to PW-3 are eye witnesses and they categorically deposed about the place of occurrence, time and the injuries sustained by all the witnesses without any contradiction. Further, he also pointed out that there is no ground to discard or to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would also submit that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are injured witnesses and the said injury was also established by way of medical witnesses, so, nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 10. Apart from that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-2 are corroborated with each other in respect of occurrence and the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court which is very well sustainable and the same needs no interference and he prays for the dismissal of appeal. 11. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by either side in support of their case and all the materials available on record are perused. 12. Upon assessment of entire evidence in respect of the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses, there is no cogent evidence is available to believe the same. At the same time, the prosecution before the learned trial Court had not taken any effort to clarify as to whether; the injured sustained either cut injury or stab injury. It is the relevant factor for the prosecution to elucidate whether the injured either cut injury or stab injury. If the prosecution is failed in this particular point it will definitely affect the root of the case. Here in this regard totally contradictory evidence is available which is not safe to sustain the conviction imposed by the learned trial Court. 13. Further, with regard to the extra judicial confession and the recovery of M.O.s.1 to 3, I am of the firm opinion that the recovery of weapons is not proved by the prosecution witnesses beyond doubt, and the recording of extra judicial confession by the accused before the PW-7 has not been proved by the prosecution. So, the recovery of weapons used for the alleged occurrence is seriously doubtful, I am of the opinion that the judgment impugned in the appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. So, the recovery of weapons used for the alleged occurrence is seriously doubtful, I am of the opinion that the judgment impugned in the appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. Therefore, from the foregoing discussions, this Court needs to interfere in the judgment of the learned trial Court as the conviction recorded against the appellant is without sufficient evidence, which constrained this Court to allow the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The bail bonds, if any executed by the accused stands cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by them shall be refunded. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.