JUDGMENT : (C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.) Petitioners herein are two among the injured persons in Crime No.2657/2017 of Vaikom Police Station for the offences alleged under Sections 308, 354, 324, 427, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners seek further investigation, essentially on the premise that the 3 rd accused, who is a friend of the 1 st accused, has been deleted from the array of accused in Ext.P2 final report, though overwhelming evidence has been made available against the said accused person. Accordingly, the petitioners seek further investigation. 3. The prosecution allegation is to the effect that, on 16.1.2017 at 9.15 p.m, accused Nos.1 and 2, out of their previous animosity, have trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant (1 st petitioner herein). The 1 st accused caught hold of CW2 Jaya, with intent to outrage her modesty. When her husband Biju came to rescue her, the 2 nd accused fisted him on his chest and back. When their children came for the rescue of their parents, they were also attacked. Ultimately, the 1 st accused assaulted CW1 Biju by using an iron rod on his head causing the injuries, thus committing the offences enumerated. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Notice to respondents 5 and 6 have been dispensed with since they are not anyway affected by the outcome of this writ petition. Perused the records. 5. The learned Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the Statement of Biju (de facto complainant), Jaya (CW2), Abhijith (CW3) and Arjun (CW4) and finally, to the statement given by one Sabu, who is an independent witness, who came to the spot during the course of the incident. All the five persons above mentioned specifically referred to the role of a third person, who is stated to be as an identifiable person and a friend of the 1 st accused, Sethunath. The overt act alleged against him is that, he had attacked petitioners’ son by name Abhijith. In such circumstances, the exclusion of that particular person from the array of accused persons is not proper, which warrants investigation, is the sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 6. This application is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In such circumstances, the exclusion of that particular person from the array of accused persons is not proper, which warrants investigation, is the sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 6. This application is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that, barring CW1 to CW4, who are the parents and children respectively - having an apparent interest in the matter - none else have supported the version that a third person was involved. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that CW6 to CW14 were questioned by the Police and their statements recorded. None of the said witnesses would refer to the presence of a third person. Secondly, the learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the Wound Certificate, wherein the names of the accused persons namely Sethunath and Reghunath are seen specifically referred to; and the name or presence of the third person is not mentioned. The learned Public Prosecutor then pointed out that the third person referred to in the complaint is a student, who came to visit the first accused, Sethunath. In the investigation, it is revealed that he was present, but he had not taken part in the attack. Nor is any overt act attributable to the said accused person. On being convinced of this fact, the Investigating Officer had excluded him from the array of accused. In such circumstances, no further investigation is warranted, is the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds apparent merits in the instant writ petition. Primarily, this Court cannot endorse the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the version of CW1 to CW4, being the injured persons and interested, cannot be taken sole stock of to incriminate a third person, whose presence is otherwise not established by the evidence of other witnesses. This Court takes into account the settled position that the version of the injured persons/injured witnesses deserves an extra weightage in evidence, for, it is unlikely that such victims of the crime would neither spare an accused who is a particeps criminis, nor would rope in an innocent person. This Court takes into account the settled position that the version of the injured persons/injured witnesses deserves an extra weightage in evidence, for, it is unlikely that such victims of the crime would neither spare an accused who is a particeps criminis, nor would rope in an innocent person. Having perused the former statements given by the de facto complainant Biju, CW2 Jaya, CW3 Abhijith and CW4 Arjun, this Court cannot, but notice that the presence of the third person is specifically seen spoken to. A specific overt act is also alleged against him in the statements. All of them would state in unison that he is a friend of the 1 st accused Sethunath, who is identifiable. That apart, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, CW5 Sabu, an independent person and a neighbour, who came to the spot towards the close of the incident also spoke about the presence of the third person in his statement. He would state that, he saw three persons going towards the north-western portion of the property from the courtyard of the house of Biju. He refers to the said persons as Reghunath, Sethunath and a third person, whom he is not acquainted with. He also saw a long material in the hand of Reghunath. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the statement of CW5, where there is a reference that, others who had gathered there had not spoken to CW5 about any overt act by the third person above referred. That, by itself, is not sufficient to exclude the third person from the array of accused, especially when witness Nos.1 to 4, all of whom were injured in the incident, specifically spoke about the presence and role of the third accused, which stands confirmed by the statement given by CW5 Sabu, though he did not specifically speak about any overt act by the said third person. This is obviously for the reason that CW5 had reached the spot only immediately after the incident and all what he saw is three persons leaving the courtyard of CW1, Madhu. With respect to the other witnesses namely CW6 Saleesh, CW7 Robin and CW8 Appukkuttan etc., they all have reached the place after the incident. This is obviously for the reason that CW5 had reached the spot only immediately after the incident and all what he saw is three persons leaving the courtyard of CW1, Madhu. With respect to the other witnesses namely CW6 Saleesh, CW7 Robin and CW8 Appukkuttan etc., they all have reached the place after the incident. Their statements contain a specific assertion - rather an answer - to the effect that they have not seen the friend of Sethunath causing any assault on the injured persons. Such a statement is seen extracted from all the said witnesses. A negative statement in the usual course of affairs is unlikely to be made, unless a specific query in that regard is put. To say the least, the fact that these witnesses had not seen the overt act of the third accused, is no reason or ground to exclude such a person from the array of accused. This will have to be seen and addressed in the context of the specific allegation in the Writ Petition that the so called third person, who was omitted from the array of the accused, is an influential person, both in politics, as also, in Police. 9. Having regard to the special status of the version of injured witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that the exclusion of the third person from the array of accused, based on the statements of other witnesses, cannot be countenanced. This Court is also not impressed of the fact the name of such a person is not finding a place in the Wound Certificate. I have perused the Wound Certificate, which initially refers to identifiable persons and thereafter, to accused Nos.1 and 2, by their names. Obviously, the injured persons do not know the name of the third person, which may probably the reason why the presence of such a person is not indicated. That apart, the Wound Certificate is not the place wherein somebody is expected to refer the names of all the persons who are present and had a role in that attack. It should also be borne in mind that the entries in the Wound Certificate are recorded immediately after the incident, when the parties/injured persons are in a shock after the incident and on account of the injuries sustained, especially when offence under Section 308 as against CW1 is canvassed. It should also be borne in mind that the entries in the Wound Certificate are recorded immediately after the incident, when the parties/injured persons are in a shock after the incident and on account of the injuries sustained, especially when offence under Section 308 as against CW1 is canvassed. Therefore, the absence of a reference to the name of the third person in the Wound Certificate also does not persuade this Court to approve the course adopted by the Investigating Officer. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, allowing further investigation. It is directed that the present Station House Officer will conduct further investigation and the same shall be overseen by the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned, as regards its correctness and course, in accordance with law.