HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1160 of 2005 O R D E R: A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.443 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District are respondents 1 to 3 herein. They allegedly caused grievous hurt to P.W.6 with an intention to murder him and that all the accused thus, committed an offence u/Sec.307 IPC. On behalf of the complainant, as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked besides M.O.1–Axe. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to make out the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the same, P.W.1 laid this revision. 2. It may be noticed that P.W.1 was the defacto complainant, but he was not the victim. P.W.6 is the victim in this case. The complaint under Ex.P1 however, was lodged by P.W.1. Perhaps, P.W.6 had thought it fit that P.W.1 should prefer this revision than P.W.6 himself. I shall examine whether any case for revision is made out. 3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.9 had disputes with the respondents (A1 to A3) in respect of tenancy rights. P.W.6, who is the victim, used to assist P.W.9 in the agricultural operations since about 10 years prior to the incident. The accused bore grudge against P.W.6 as he did not pay heed to their threats to disassociate himself from P.W.9. On 12.10.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. while P.W.6 was driving the tractor loaded with millet candles near the fields, A-1 to A3 in consortium attacked P.W.6. A-1 deflated the tyres of the tractor, while A-2 hacked P.W.6 on his neck with an axe. A.1 and A.3 however, axed the left thigh of P.W.2. 4. P.W.9 and P.W.2 informed P.W.1 about the attack over P.W.6 and about P.W.6 having been removed in a tractor to the bus stand en route to the hospital. P.W.1 immediately reached the bus stand and found P.W.6 with bleeding injuries. He subsequently, laid the complaint under Ex.P1. When police conducted investigation, in the process, they recovered M.O.1-axe at the behest of the confession of A-1 under Ex.P6. This is the sum and substance of the prosecution case. 5. Sri A.Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for P.W.1 contended that the evidence of P.W.5 per se is sufficient to convict the accused as the case is made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence of P.W.5. 6. On the other hand, Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the accused, disputed the evidence of P.W.5 and claimed that the evidence of P.W.5 does not corroborate with the evidence of P.W.6 and that the evidence of P.W.5 therefore, should not be accepted. 7. As already pointed out, P.W.6 is the victim. There are as may as three accused in the instant case. None of the witnesses of the prosecution speak about the complicity of A-3 in the commission of the offence. P.W.6 further admitted that A-3 was not present at the time of commission of the offence. The learned counsel for P.W.1 however, contended that P.W.6 had not been in proper senses eversince the incident and that the evidence of P.W.6 should be read with other circumstances. I am afraid that benefit of doubt from the evidence of P.W.6, if any, should flow in favour of the accused but not in favour of the prosecution. 8. P.W.6 is specific in pointing out that A.3 was not present at the scene of offence at the time of offence. I do not wish to accept the contention of the learned counsel for P.W.1 that A.3 also participated in the attack against P.W.6 and that on account of the mental imbalance, P.W.6 spoke as if, A.3 was not present at the scene of offence. Even assuming so, neither witnesses spoke about the participation of A.3 in the commission of the offence. As already noticed, the learned counsel for P.W.1 is placing heavy reliance upon the evidence of P.W.5. Even P.W.5 did not speak about the participation of A-3 in the offence. A-3 has nothing to do with the offence in this case. The trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting A.3. There is no justification in P.W.1 seeking for conviction against A-3. 9. A.1 and A.2 do not stand on the same footing as A.3. Some overtacts were attributed against A.1 and A.2. It therefore, is necessary to examine whether the evidence leads to an inference that A.1 and A.2 are innocent. If the evidence can be interpreted in favour of the accused as well as in favour of the prosecution, the accused would be liable to be acquitted. That apart, where the case is the revision against acquittal, when the evidence can be interpreted as showing the innocence of the accused, the acquittal of the accused by the trial court cannot be reversed. This indeed, is the legal position. Keeping this legal position in mind, I shall examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. P.W.6 is the victim. P.W.5 is one of the eye-witnesses to the incident. P.Ws.5 and 6 claim that A.1 and A.2 attacked P.W.6 and caused injuries to him. However, regarding the overtacts against the A.1 and A.2, P.Ws.5 and 6 spoke diametrically against each other. While P.W.5 deposed that A.1 axed P.W.6 on the neck, P.W.6 deposed that A.2 beat him with an axe on the left side of his neck. P.W.5 deposed that A.2 administered a blow on the thigh of P.W.6. P.W.6 attributed the attack on his left thigh by A-1. Thus P.Ws.5 and 6 did not agree as to the overtacts by A.1 and A.2 against P.W.6. I am afraid that the conviction based on such inconsistent evidence would not be justified. 11. More important aspect is the patent absence of eye-witness account apart from the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6. The evidence of other than the two eye-witnesses to the incident did not corroborate with each other. P.W.1 is the author of the complaint. His case is that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. P.Ws.9 and 2 came to him and informed him that P.W.6 was attacked by the accused while P.W.6 was driving the tractor and that some one had taken P.W.6 to the bus stand. P.W.2 did not speak about her going to P.W.1 and informing P.W.1 about the attack. P.W.9 went further and stated that she was confined to bed in the hospital at the time of the attack and that she had come to know telephonically about the attack on P.W.6. Hence, the question of P.W.9 going to P.W.1 and informing him about the incident is ruled out. At any rate, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.9 is eye-witness to the incident. P.W.2 is said to be an eye-witness to the incident proper. P.W.2 agreed with P.W.6 in pointing out that A-2 attacked P.W.6 with an axe on the head. However, P.W.6 deposed that he was hacked on his neck by A.2 but P.W.2 deposed that A-2 hacked on the head of P.W.6. P.Ws.2 and 6 agreed that A.1 beat on the left thigh of P.W.6. 12. However, curiously, in the chief-examination itself, P.W.2 pointed out that by the time she reached the scene of offence, the accused left the scene of offence. Indeed in the chief-examination and in the cross- examination, P.W.2 has left distinct impression that she was present at the time of the commission of the offence. However, in the light of her admission that by the time she reached the scene of offence, the accused had left from the scene of offence, I believe that benefit of doubt shall accrue and flow in favour of the accused. 13. P.W.2 referred P.Ws.3 and 5 as eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W.3 did not support the prosecution story. P.W.4 is also one of the alleged eye-witnesses. He also did not support the prosecution story. Thus P.Ws.1 and 9 are not eye-witnesses to the incident. The source of information to P.W.1 and lodging of Ex.P1-complaint was not proved. P.Ws.5 and 6 did not agree as to the specific overtacts by A-1 and A-2. Although, P.W.2 spoke as if she was present at the time of the commission of the offence and corroborated P.W.6, she herself admitted that by the time she reached the scene of offence, the accused had already left the scene. P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the other alleged eye- witnesses, did not support the prosecution story. The prosecution consequently, failed in establishing the guilt of the accused by any stretch of imagination. 14. Added to it, it is the prosecution case that the accused had thrown away the axes in the pond after the commission of the offence. While so, only one axe, viz., M.O.1 was recovered by the police. It is claimed that M.O.1 was recovered at the instance of A-1. What happened to the other axes if they were also thrown in the pond is not explained by the prosecution. At any rate, the non-recovery of the other axe is not as important as the inconsistency in the evidence recorded in the earlier paragraphs. 15. In view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 as stated above in one set and P.Ws.1, 2 and 9 in another, I consider that the trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The revision is therefore, found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the revision is dismissed. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Dt. 09.09.2011 Mjl/*