JUDGMENT : B. PUGALENDHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C. No. 354 of 2008 as against the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Madurai. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 332 and 307 IPC and the trial Court, in conclusion of the trial, found him not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and by order dated 30.06.2009, acquitted him from the said charge, however, found him guilty for the offence under Section 332 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows: 2.1. On 28.03.1997, at about 08.30 p.m. the complainant (PW-1) received telephonic information that one Kumar Medicals in Munichalay was attacked by seven persons. PW-1, along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, went to Kurivikaran Salai and enquired at Kumar Medicals and on their information, they have traced the accused near Ganesh theatre. But then, they got information that the accused ran into the Vaigai river. Therefore, PW-1 went in search of them to the northern bank of the river Vaigai and the Sub-Inspector of Police went to the southern bank. When PW-1 was searching near the petrol bunk on the northern bank, this appellant along with another accused attacked him. This appellant is said to have attacked PW-1 with a Sickle, which was guarded by PW-1. In the scuffle, PW-1 sustained injury on his left hand, head and lips. On seeing this incident, the public nearby came to the rescue of the complainant (PW-1) and thereafter, the accused flee away from the scene of occurrence. 2.2. PW-1 was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and admitted as in-patient in Ward No. 99. On intimation from the Government Hospital, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar (PW-6), namely, Thiru. Gnanasekaran, went to the Hospital and recorded the statement from PW-1 on 29.03.1997 at about 00.30 hours. The statement recorded from PW-1 is marked as Ex.P1. PW-6, thereafter, returned to the Anna Nagar Police Station and registered the case in Crime No. 167 of 1997 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex.P3. 2.3. The statement recorded from PW-1 is marked as Ex.P1. PW-6, thereafter, returned to the Anna Nagar Police Station and registered the case in Crime No. 167 of 1997 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex.P3. 2.3. On receipt of information about the registration of the case, the Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station (PW-7), namely, Thiru. Thangaraj, proceeded to the place of occurrence around 02.00 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P4) and rough sketch (Ex.P5), in the presence of the witnesses, namely, Ramu (PW-5) and Karuppiah. He also enquired the complainant (PW-1), recorded his statement and arrested the appellant behind Thenur Mandapam in Vaigai river on 29.03.1997, in the presence of witnesses, namely, Rajamani and Durai. He also recorded the confession statement from the appellant and pursuant to the same, an Aruval (MO1), a Knife (MO2) and a Gold Chain were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P7. He also examined the Doctor, who treated the complainant, obtained the Accident Register (Ex.P8) and after completing the investigation, filed the final report for the offence under Sections 332 and 307 IPC. 2.4. The second accused, namely, Suresh was not secured and therefore, the case against this appellant was split up in P.R.C. No. 30 of 1997 and committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court took the case in S.C. No. 354 of 2008 and proceeded with the trial. 2.5. During the trial, seven witnesses were examined; eight exhibits were marked and three material objects were produced on the side of the prosecution. 2.6. The complainant, namely, Thiru Rathinamani, Constable, Theppakulam Police Station was examined as PW-1. One Poornima, victim in another incident was examined as PW-2, but, she did not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, she was treated as a hostile witness. Another victim, namely, Jothi, in a connected incident was examined as PW-3 and one more victim, namely, Suriyaprakash, was examined as PW-4. PW-5, namely, Thiru Ramu, is the mahazar witness, but, he did not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was treated as a hostile witness. The Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Thiru Gnanasekaran, who registered the case on the file of the Anna Nagar Police Station was examined as PW-6 and the Inspector of Police, Thiru Thangaraj was examined as PW-7. 2.7. The Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Thiru Gnanasekaran, who registered the case on the file of the Anna Nagar Police Station was examined as PW-6 and the Inspector of Police, Thiru Thangaraj was examined as PW-7. 2.7. After the prosecution side evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same. Though he has stated that he is having witnesses on his side, he has not examined any witness. In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, though acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC, convicted him for the offence under Section 332 IPC and sentenced him, as stated supra. As against the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. Heard Mr. T. Senthilkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant appointed through the legal aid and Ms. S. Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has made the following points for the consideration of this Court: 4.1. The complainant (PW-1) went to the place of occurrence on the complaint that Kumar Medicals was attacked by seven persons. But, no body was examined as a witness in this regard and the complaint was also not placed before the Court. 4.2. According to the complaint (Ex.P1), it was seven persons who have committed the offence with deadly weapons at the time of occurrence. But, the final report was filed as against this appellant and one Suresh alone. Even the respondent Police was not able to secure the other accused Suresh and produce him before the Court. 4.3. Though this appellant was not involved in any other case, five cases have been registered against him as if on the same day, this appellant along with other accused, indulged in five other similar incidents. 4.4. The witnesses for arrest and recovery were not examined by the prosecution and the Gold Chain said to have recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P7 was not placed before the Court during the trial. 4.5. Though the complainant (PW-1) was accompanied by a Sub-Inspector of Police, the Sub-Inspector of Police was not examined before the trial Court. Further, the occurrence was taken place on 28.03.1997 at about 09.15 p.m. and PW-1 was admitted in the Hospital at about 09.30 p.m. whereas, the complaint was registered only on 29.03.1997 at about 00.30 hours. 4.5. Though the complainant (PW-1) was accompanied by a Sub-Inspector of Police, the Sub-Inspector of Police was not examined before the trial Court. Further, the occurrence was taken place on 28.03.1997 at about 09.15 p.m. and PW-1 was admitted in the Hospital at about 09.30 p.m. whereas, the complaint was registered only on 29.03.1997 at about 00.30 hours. The said Sub-Inspector of Police said to have accompanied the complainant (PW-1) did not prefer any complaint. 4.6. The name of the appellant is not mentioned in the complaint (Ex.P1). PW-7 did not conducted any identification parade to fix the appellant as an accused. Moreover, the witnesses, namely, PWs. 2 to 4 have not stated that this appellant is the accused in the said incident. 4.7. The Doctor who is said to have treated PW-1 at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, was not examined by the prosecution. 4.8. Relying upon the evidence of Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-6) and Inspector of Police (PW-7), the learned Counsel would contend that there is a contradiction with regard to the manner in which the case has been registered. According to PW-6, he, on information, went to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, recorded the statement from PW-1, returned to the Police Station and registered the case. Whereas, according to PW-7, PW-1 came to the police station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P7). Therefore, the learned Counsel prays for allowing the present appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the case of the prosecution was established beyond any reasonable doubt. PW-1 is an injured witness, who set the law in motion immediately after the occurrence and the evidence of PW-1 was corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4. The injury sustained by PW-1 was established through the Wound Certificate (Ex.P8). Though the Doctor, who provided treatment to PW-1, was not examined, the Wound Certificate of the victim was marked before the trial Court. The accused was arrested on 29.03.1997 and the weapon Sickle (MO1) and a knife (MO2) was recovered from him. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal. 6. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record. 7. In this case, the law was set in motion through PW-1, a Police Constable attached to Theppakulam Police Station. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal. 6. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record. 7. In this case, the law was set in motion through PW-1, a Police Constable attached to Theppakulam Police Station. PW-1 received an anonymous call that seven persons with deadly weapons were attacking one Kumar Medicals on 28.03.1997 at about 08.30 p.m. Therefore, PW-1 along with a Sub-Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence at Kurivikaran Salai on 28.03.1997 and on verification, PW-1 came to know that the accused, after committing the offence, went into the river Vaigai. PW-1 and the Sub-Inspector of Police split up and went to the Southern and Northern Banks of the river in search of them. At that time, on seeing the police party, this appellant, on the instigation of the another accused Suresh, said to have attacked PW-1 with a Sickle. PW-1, while guarding, sustained injuries on his left hand, head and lips. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital and was also admitted as in-patient in Ward No. 99. The Wound Certificate for the treatment provided in the Government Rajaji Hospital was also marked through PW-7. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the complaint (Ex.Pl) was lodged by PW-1 at about 00.30 hours on 29.03.1997. In the complaint (Ex.Pl), PW-1 has stated that seven persons with deadly weapons have committed the offence. Neither the names of the accused, nor the identification factors were mentioned in the complaint. The final report was filed as against two persons alone, namely, this appellant and one Suresh, that too, without there being any identification parade. The other accused, Suresh, was not arrested and not placed before the trial. Though the appellant was said to have arrested on 29.03.1997 in the presence of two persons, those persons were not examined as witnesses. Similarly, though PW-1 sustained injury and took treatment in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, the Doctor who provided the treatment to PW-1 was not examined by the prosecution. 9. This is a case in which a Police Constable was assaulted by a rowdy element and the complainant is a Police Constable. Similarly, though PW-1 sustained injury and took treatment in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, the Doctor who provided the treatment to PW-1 was not examined by the prosecution. 9. This is a case in which a Police Constable was assaulted by a rowdy element and the complainant is a Police Constable. Even though the prosecution was conducted in such a shabby manner, the trial was concluded even without examining the relevant witnesses for arrest and recovery as well as the Doctor, who provided treatment to the victim (PW-1). There is no explanation, whatsoever, on the part of the prosecution for the non-examination of these vital witnesses. Moreover, PW-1 was accompanied by a Sub-Inspector of Police at the time of occurrence to the place of occurrence, but, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who accompanied PW-1 was not examined during the trial. 10. In view of the aforesaid material contradictions, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Madurai, in S.C. No. 354 of 2008, dated 30.06.2009, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or proceedings. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand terminated. In fine, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed.