8.On a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is seen that they have stated that the accused were aggressors, but had denied any retaliation by them. The Doctor who examined the witness, has opined that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was grievous, but, whereas, the injury sustained by P.W.2 and P.W.3 were simple. In the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 3, they have not stated anything about the injuries suffered by A1, A4 and A5. The treatment records of the accused were marked as Exs.D6, D7, D8, D9 and D13. The police have completely suppressed these facts, but, however in the cross examination of the investigation officer, he has stated that on the complaint given by A2, F.I.R. (Ex.D11) was registered in Crime No.3 of 2013 under Sections 323, 324 I.P.C. against the complainant's party, but the same was closed as mistake of fact. In a case of this nature, where two groups have clashed, it is not improper for the police to register two F.I.Rs as in this case. However, at the time of filing of final report and during trial, police must come forward with evidence to show that the complainant's party were not the aggressors, but, only the accused party were the aggressors and that the complainant's party had inflicted the injuries on the accused for self defence. Such a course was not adopted by the police. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 never spoke about the injury inflicted by them on A1 to A5. Thus, when there has been suppression of the genesis of the case, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. The Trial Court which has had the opportunity to see the demeanor of all witnesses, has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 with regard to the alleged attack and has acquitted the accused. This Court does not find any serious infirmity in the order of acquittal by the Trial Court warranting interference.
