P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.3 is his wife.The deceased wasresiding at Thazhakudy Village in Kanyakumari District.Theyalso belong to the same village.Admittedly, there was ill feeling betweenthe two families, which culminated into a motive.It is alleged that on 03.12.2004, P.W.2 was proceeding towardsThazhakudy Amman Temple.At that time, it is alleged that the accused 1 and2 came there and scolded him in filthy language.In course of the saidquarrel, it is alleged that the first accused attacked P.W.2 with an iron rodon the right thumb of P.W.2, which resulted in an injury.The second accusedattacked him with iron rod on the left side of the ear and forehead, whichresulted in injuries.A3 also joined hands with them and he was physicallypresent sharing the common intention.When the accused 1 and 2 were mounting attack on P.W.2, the deceased, who was sitting inside his shop, questionedthe same.Immediately, the accused 1 and 2 armed with weapons, trespassed into the shop and started attacking the deceased also.The first accusedattacked the deceased with iron rod on the left side of the head resulting ina bleeding injury.The 2nd accused attacked him with knife on the left wristof the deceased.The deceased fell down sustaining the above injuries.Then,all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.ThereafterP.W.2 and the deceased were taken to the Government Medical College Hospital at Asaripallam.At 12.30 p.m., P.W.6 ? Dr.Lysander, examined the deceased.He was told that the deceased had sustained injuries at 8.30 a.m. at03.12.2004 due to the attack by a mob of persons.He admitted her also as inpatient.P6 is the Accident Register relatingto the deceased and Ex.On getting intimation from the hospital, P.W.9 the then HeadConstable attached to Aralvaimozhi Police Station, proceeded to the hospitalat 12.11 hours, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, since the deceased was inan unconscious state.He forwarded these documents to theCourt and handed over the case diary for investigation to the Inspector ofPolice.P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police attached to AralvaimozhiPolice Station took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place ofoccurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in thepresence of P.W.5 and another witness.He also prepared an observationmahazar showing the place, where the deceased was attacked inside his shop in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements.While so, on 04.12.2004, the deceased, who wasundergoing treatment in the hospital, succumbed to the injuries.On gettingintimation from the hospital regarding the death of the deceased, P.W.14altered the case into one under Sections 341, 324, 452, 427 and 302 IPC andprepared an alteration report.P17 is the alteration report.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) There are three appellants in this appeal, who are the accused 1 to 3in S.C.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,Kanyakumari atNagercoil.The trial Court framed as many as eight charges against theaccused as follows:Charge Accused Penal Provisions1A1, A2 and A3 341 IPC 2A1 & A2 324 IPC 3A3 324 r/w 34 IPC4A1 & A2 449 IPC 5A3 449 r/w 34 IPC6A1 & A2 302 IPC 7A3 302 r/w 34 IPC8A1, A2 & A3 427 IPCBy judgment dated 27.08.2010, the trial Court found the accusedguilty under all the charges and accordingly, punished them as detailedhereunder:Accused Conviction under SectionSentence imposed A1 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 324 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment A2 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 324 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment A3 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come upwith this appeal.It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of this appeal,the third appellant/third accused passed away.He was also told that oneof the assailants used a knife.When P.W.6 examined him, he found as many as two external injuries on the deceased.The first injury was a laceratedinjury with contusion measuring 5 x 5 cm.on the head.There was anoverlapping injury measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm.The 2ndinjury was a cut injury measuring 4 x 1 x + cm on the left elbow.P.W.6admitted the deceased as inpatient in his hospital.P.W.2 told him that on the same day, at 8.30 a.m., she was attacked with an iron rod.When P.W.6 examined her, he noticed three external injuries as follows:(1) A lacerated injury measuring 2 + x 1 x + cm on the right hand.(2) a lacerated injury measuring 1 + x , , cm on the left ear.(3) an abrasion extending 2 cm on the forehead.P.W.14proceeded to the hospital conducted inquest on the body of the deceased inthe presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P18 the inquest report.Then,he forwarded the body for postmortem.4.5. P.W.13 ? Dr.V.Paramasivam conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 04.12.2004 at 03.50 p.m. at the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli.During the postmortem, he noticed the followingexternal injuries:(1) a sutured injury measuring 6 x 1 cm x muscle depth and anotheroverlapping injury measuring 3 x 1 x muscle depth on the head.(2) an irregular abrasion measuring 5 x 3 c.m. on the right side of theback of chest.(3) a sutured cut injury measuring 6 x 2 cm on the left parietal regionof the head.Opening the body,he found the blood clot on all sides of brain.There was no fracture on theskull.On opening the thorax, he found fluid blood measuring 100 ml in theThorax cavity.Finally, he gave opinionthat the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effectof all the injuries.P14 is the Postmortem Certificate.Continuing the investigation, P.W.14 arrested the accused.Heforwarded the dress materials found on the dead body and the bloodstainedearth recovered from the place of occurrence for chemical examination.P22 is the chemical examination report and Ex.P23 is the Serology Report.According to the said report, human blood was noticed on the dhoti and banianworn by the deceased.P.W.14 examined the Doctors, collected the medical records and finally laid charge sheet against all the three accused.Basedon the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in thefirst paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, asmany as 14 witnesses were examined, 25 documents were exhibited and 9 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.2 is the injuredeye witness.He has vividly spoken about the attack made on him by theaccused 1 and 2 and he has also spoken about the presence of the accused No.3 at the time of occurrence.P.W.1 is the sister of P.W.2, who has stated thatshe followed P.W.2, when he proceeded to the Temple.At that time, accordingto her, she witnessed the entire occurrence.She has also vividly spokenabout the attack made by the accused 1 and 2 on P.W.2 as well as on the deceased.P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased.According to her, she was inher house at the time of occurrence along with the deceased.The house ofthe deceased and the shop are in the same hut.P.W.4, though not a resident of thatarea, claimed to have come to the place of occurrence to have tea in theshop.P.W.5 has spoken about the observationmahazar prepared by P.W.14 at the place of occurrence both outside thehouse and inside the house.P.W.6 ? Dr.Lysander has spoken about the treatment given by him to P.W.2 and the deceased and the admission made as inpatients.P.W.7 the Head Constable has spoken about the death intimationgiven by the hospital, which, he duly forwarded to the Aralvaimozhi PoliceStation.P.W.8 Mr.Chandran, the Police Constable attached to Aralvaimozhihas spoken about the fact that he carried the alteration report to the Courtand handed over the same to the Court on time.P.W.10 is theDoctor, who declared the deceased dead and who, in turn, intimated the sameto the police.P.W.11 is the Head Constable was the one, who carried thedead body to the hospital after the inquest was over for conductingpostmortem.P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police attached to the same policestation has spoken about the earlier case against the accused, which isstated to be the motive for the present occurrence.P.W.13 has spoken aboutthe postmortem conducted by him and his opinion that the death was due toshock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries foundon the deceased.P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, theymarked as many as five documents as defence documents.D1 is the carbon copy of the Accident Register of the deceased.D4 is theAccident Register copy of A1 and Ex.D5 is the treatment records of the firstaccused.The defence of the accused was that the deceased party were theaggressors.Armed with dangerous weapons, they attacked the accused 1 and 2, in which, the accused 1 and 2 sustained serious injuries, in which, one ofthe injury sustained by the first accused was a fracture.In respect of thesaid occurrence, there was a case registered in Crime No.674 of 2004 underSections 341 and 324 IPC as against the deceased party.It is the furthercase of the defence that the said counter case was not investigated properly.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accusedguilty and accordingly punished them as detailed in the first paragraph ofthis judgment.That is how, they are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perusedthe records carefully.The learned Senior counsel would mainly focus his arguments on theground that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of theoccurrence.According to the learned senior counsel, admittedly, there was acounter case in Crime No.674 of 2004 on the complaint of the first accused.But the same was not investigated properly.The learned seniorcounsel would next contend that though the accused 1 and 2 sustained seriousinjuries, more particularly, the first accused had suffered a fracture, theinjuries have not been explained away by any of the witnesses.The learnedsenior counsel would further point out that though it is the legal obligationof the prosecution to be fair to produce all the materials collected duringthe course of investigation of the counter case, more particularly, the woundcertificates and the treatment of records of the accused, the prosecution hasdeliberately suppressed the same.The learned senior counsel would furtherpoint out that these documents were, however, proved by way of defencedocument.The learned senior counsel would take us through the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 4, who are eye witnesses including P.W.2, who is the injured eyewitness.The learned counsel would point out that none of the witnesses haveexplained away anything about either the presence of the injuries or aboutthe cause for these injuries.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethese appeals stoutly.According to him, it is true that Crime No.674 of2004 and Crime No.675 of 2004 are cases in counter.But he would point outthat there was proper investigation done in respect of Crime No.674 of 2004and since it was found that the accused herein were the aggressors, the saidcase in Crime No.674 of 2004 was referred as 'Mistake of Fact'.Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,the prosecution has not suppressed any materials.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit thatthough it is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 have not spoken anything about the injurysustained by the accused 1 and 2, on that score, the accused are not entitledfor acquittal, because their evidences are otherwise cogent and convincing.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that from theevidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution thatthe accused party were the aggressors.The eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4 have not even spokenabout the injuries on the accused.Immediately, after the occurrence, theaccused 1 and 2 were also taken to the hospital.Itshows that there were as many as two injuries, which are as follows:(1) Abrasion 3 c.m x + cm left forearm.(2) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm left leg.These injuries were noticed by P.W.6 ? Dr.He was told that theywere attacked by four known persons.But absolutely, there is no explanationeither regarding the presence of these injuries and cause for these injuriesby any of the eye witnesses.Applying the above dictum laid down to the facts of the presentcase, if we look into the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, undoubtedly, they are allinterested witnesses and they are closely related to the deceased.There isalso enmity between these two families.It isalso the law that during the trial of the case, all the materials collectedin the counter case should be placed and proved in evidence.But in thiscase, unfortunately, except marking the xerox copy of the FIR and the finalreport, no other materials have been proved in evidence.But the prosecution has not chosen to examine anyindependent witness from that locality.Had any independent witness beenexamined from that locality, truth would have come out and in which case, itwould have been possible to find out whether the accused party were theaggressors or the deceased party were the aggressors.Thus, in our considered view, the fact that theaccused are the aggressors has not been duly established by the prosecution.In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecutionhas not come forward with the true version of the occurrence and thus, theprosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trialCourt is liable to the set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and the appellants areacquitted.2.The Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhy Police Station, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

Cited provisions: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code