Order.- Accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the revision petitioners. A-1 was found guilty of offences under sections 148, 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each charge, by the I Class Magistrate, Vellore. A-2 was found guilty under sections 148 and 324, Indian Penal Code two counts); A-3 was found guilty under sections 148 and 324, Indian Penal Code; A-5 was found guilty under sections 147 and 323 (two counts) and A-6 was found guilty under sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. They were convicted thereunder, but were released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act or their executing bonds. A-2 was directed to pay Rs. 100 as costs of proceedings and A-3, A-5 and A-6 were each directed to pay Rs. 50 as costs. In appeal, the convictions under section 148, Indian Penal Code, in so far as A-1, A-2 and A-3 were confirmed and the convictions under section 147 as regards A-5 and A-6 were confirmed and A-1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under section 148, Indian Penal Code and the order releasing A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 under the Probation of Offenders Act was maintained and confirmed. The revision petitioners were not found guilty of other offences and were acquitted of those charges. The revision petitioners now challenge the convictions under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code. The facts are: 2. Originally, the revision petitioners and six others were charged for various offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 342 and 355read with sections 149 and 109, Indian Penal Code. Except the revision petitioners, others were acquitted. The allegation was that on 3rd March, 1975, at about 8-30 p.m. the revision petitioners committed rioting with the common object of causing grievous hurt and simple hurt to Kanagasabapathy (P.W. 1) and others and they were armed with dangerous weapons at that time. The 7th accused is said to have instigated the revision petitioners to attack P.Ws. 1 to 3. and in pursuance of that instigation, the first accused cut P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 with a knife, the second accused beat P.W. 3 with stick and the 6th accused beat P.W. 1 with stick and the fourth accused obstructed P.W. 3. The 7th accused is said to have instigated the revision petitioners to attack P.Ws. 1 to 3. and in pursuance of that instigation, the first accused cut P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 with a knife, the second accused beat P.W. 3 with stick and the 6th accused beat P.W. 1 with stick and the fourth accused obstructed P.W. 3. As I earlier pointed out, the trial Magistrate relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 17 and convicted the revision petitioners of the offences with which they were charged and acquitted the other accused. 3. The learned Counsel Mr. Krishnan appearing for the revision petitioners pointed out that the Appellate Judge has acquitted the revision petitioners of all other offences with which they were charged, but has chosen to convict them under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code, and when once he finds the evidence of those witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 3, is unreliable and lacks in credibility, he ought not to have relied on the rest of the evidence of those witnesses to convict the revision petitioners of the offences under sections 148 and 147. 4. For contra, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out relying on the ruling in Ranbir v. State of Punjab1, that in cases, of party factions, there is generally speaking a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with guilty ones and where a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, then it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the rest of the evidence with care and caution and if the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. 5. Bearing this principle enunciated in the said ruling, we may now scrutinise the findings given by the learned Appellate Judge. The learned Judge has not believed the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in regard to the manner in which they were injured. It should be noted that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were injured. The case, as spoken to by the witnesses, was that A-4 obstructed P.W. 3 and made him to get down from his cycle and that the 2nd accused hit P.W. 3 on head with an iron pipe. It should be noted that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were injured. The case, as spoken to by the witnesses, was that A-4 obstructed P.W. 3 and made him to get down from his cycle and that the 2nd accused hit P.W. 3 on head with an iron pipe. The evidence further is to the effect that P.W. 1 was cut by the first accused on his right forehead with knife and that the first accused also cut P.W. 2 on his left Wrist and the 2nd accused beat P.W. 1 with iron pipe oh his head and that the 5th accused also beat P.W. 1 on his head with stick. Here, I must point out that the 4th accused has been acquitted even by the Trial Magistrate, which will show that the evidence as regards obstruction is not true. No overt acts were attributed to A-9 to A-11 and they were also acquitted by the Trial Magistrate. The finding by the Appellate Judge is that the witnesses have endeavoured to rope in A-4 and A-9 to A-11 attributing some over acts to the 4th accused, but not to A-9 to A-11. The learned Appellate Judge has rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witness requires to be scrutinised with utmost case and circumspection. But it appears to me, though he has extracted the law on the subject correctly, he erred in the application of the same. In more than one place, the Appellate Judge says that the evidence of prosecution witnesses must be scrutinised with care and caution. He finds that according to the medical evidence, the injury on the head of P.W. 3 could not have been’ caused by an iron pipe. The learned Appellate Judge says that “the doctor P.W. 16 has ruled out that any injury is attributable to the use of any iron pipe on P.W. 3 and this will falsify the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the manner in which the injuries were caused and the persons who actually inflicted the injuries.” The learned appellate Judge has also a disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2 as regard the manner in which he sustained the injuries. He observes that “it is impossible to believe that as many as eleven accused who have indiscriminately attacked P.Ws. He observes that “it is impossible to believe that as many as eleven accused who have indiscriminately attacked P.Ws. 1 to 3 and a few others according to the prosecution spared this P.W. 2 after P.W. 2 sustained the injury accidentally or at the time when he intervened to prevent first accused cutting P.W. 1”. 6. In regard to injury on P.W. 2, the learned Judge observes that “it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that it is the first accused who cut and caused the punctured wound on the left wrist of P.W. 2”. He also does not believe the evidence of P.W. 3. He states that the doctor could not find any injury attributable to the use of iron pipe on P.W. 3. He clearly states that the evidence of P.W. 5 also suffers from infirmities. He has also not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.W. 7. He has observed in regard to the evidence of P.W. 7 that ‘his evidence attributing overt act to accused 1 and 6 cannot be accepted.‘He has also stated that P.W. 8 is related to P.W. 5 and also states that ‘the evidence of P.W. 8 contains inherent infirmities’. Finally, the learned Appellate Judge observed as follows: “Therefore the evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 who are in the nature of partisan witnesses and who are interested in speaking to their case against the accused and the evidence of other witnesses who have come to the scene of occurrence on hearing the noise suffers from very serious infirmities.” 7. In view of these strong observations by the learned Appellate Judge, the conviction of the revision petitioners under sections 148 and 147 appears to be not correct. Further, the learned Appellate Judge, as I earlier pointed out, has observed that the evidence must be scrutinised with caution and care. He has found P.Ws. 1 to 3 to be “partisan witneses” and witnesses “who are interested in speaking at their case against the accused” and notwithstanding these observations, his action in confirming the convictions under sections 148 and 147, solely basing these convictions on the testimony of these partisan witnesses cannot be sustained. That is why I observed earlier that though the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the evidence of P.Ws. That is why I observed earlier that though the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3should be approached with caution, has failed to apply that rule of caution. 8. Apart from this, the evidence of P.W. 3 shows that he went to the police station and narrated the entire occurrence and that the police took his statement. But P.W. 17, the Investigating Officer, would state that on hearing the occurrence, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 3, therefore, would show that he made the statement at 9-45 or 10-00 p.m. at the police station. Ex P-1 was recorded at 11-45 p.m. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 3 is an earlier statement, but that has been burked. One does not know what the statement of P.W. 3 contained. It was contended strenuously for the revision petitioners by their learned Counsel that the Court has to draw an inference that the statement of P.W. 3 was burked, because it does not support the prosecution case. But, notwithstanding his finding that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are partisan witnesses who are interested in deposing against the accused, the learned Judge has observed that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very clear that the revision petitioners were armed with weapons. I have already pointed out to the observations of the learned Appellate Judge that certain accused were roped in and were implicated and that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are interested in deposing against the accused. I am unable to understand how the learned Judge found the rest of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to be trust worthy to base the convictions under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code. It is pertinently pointed out that the substratum of the prosecution case does not remain intact. A-7, who is said to have instigated the accused to cause hurt to P.Ws. 1 to 3 has been acquitted by the trial Court itself. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 has been disbelieved by the Appellate Judge in respect of the overtacts and the accused-revision-petitioners were acquitted of all the charges except the charges under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code. 9. 1 to 3 has been acquitted by the trial Court itself. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 has been disbelieved by the Appellate Judge in respect of the overtacts and the accused-revision-petitioners were acquitted of all the charges except the charges under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners invited my attention to a ruling in Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, and, contended that if there is a free fight between the parties armed with weapons and if the accused party is found not to be the aggressors, there cannot be a conviction either under section 147 or under section 143, Indian Penal Code. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has stated “that the evidence indicated that the villagers have also attacked the accused and both parties fought causing confusion”. He has also observed (in paragraph 6) that “it would be thus clear that P.W. 1 was on the wrong at the inception” which would only mean that P.W. 1 was the aggressor. At any rate, it is clear that the accused party are not the aggressors. 10. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed: “If really the accused were not the aggressors, no case either under section 147 or section 148 of the Penal Code, can be maintained against them, and then it is for the prosecution to prove the individual assaults of which there is no evidence.” 11. The accused are not shown to be aggressors and, therefore, the convictions under sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code, are bad. 12. Yet another circumstance which makes it difficult to believe that the trouble originated in the manner alleged by the prosecution is that the prosecution has not explained the grievous injury found on the 9th accused and the incised injury found on the 6th accused. The learned Sessions Judge has clearly stated that the prosecution has rot explained the grievous injury on the 9th accused and the incised injury on the 6th accused. These are not minor or superficial injuries. When the prosecution has not explained the injuries, one can draw the inference that the prosecution had suppressed genesis of the origin of the occurrence and has thus not given the true version of the case (See observation in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar2). These are not minor or superficial injuries. When the prosecution has not explained the injuries, one can draw the inference that the prosecution had suppressed genesis of the origin of the occurrence and has thus not given the true version of the case (See observation in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar2). For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the revision petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Appellate Judge ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 to 3 to convict the revision petitioners of the offences under sections 146 and 147, Indian Penal Code, when he himself has observed that they are partisan witnesses interested in deposing against the accused. The revision petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt which I accord them. The revision is allowed and the convictions under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code, are set aside and the revision petitioners are acquitted. The fine, if any, paid, will be refunded.