Order This revision is directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the conviction of the first accused under Section 307, I.P.C., read with Section 109, I.P.C., and Section 307, I.P.C., read with Section 34 I.P.C., and the sentence of five years R.I., and the second accused under Section 307, I.P.C., to undergo R.I., for five years passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case which are necessary for the disposal of this revision may be narrated as follows: P.W. 1 is the son of P.W. 7. The second accused is the son of the first accused. The accused and P.Ws. 1 and 7 were residents of Pakkaliyur and they were neighbours. Besides’ that they have got adjacent lands. P.W.1 was employed as Telephone Operator at Sankagiri Telephone Exchange. P.W.7 filed a civil suit before the District Munsif, Sankagiri alleging that the first accused encroached upon his field and was constructing houses and also obtained a temporary injunction. In spite of the order of temporary injunction, accused 1 and 2 continued to put up construction and thereupon P.W. 7 preferred two petitions against them to Sankagiri Police and they were enquired on both the occasions by the police. The two accused and one Pavayee, the wife of the first accused beat the mother of P.W. 1 on 3.6.1978 and in respect of the same, criminal proceedings were also instituted before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sanakagiri. Again on 15.2.1979, P.W. 8 was taking his tractor along the road and in front of the house of the accused and the said Pavayee obstructed him from passing through that road by placing stones across the road and in the quarrel ensued between them, P.Ws. 1 and 7 and family members of P.W. 8 came there in support of P.W. 8 and in that souffle, the accused sustained simple injuries and the second accused preferred a complaint to the Sankagiri Police and latter P.Ws. 1, 7 and 8 were examined and warned by the police. It was represented that the civil suit filed by P.W. 7 ended in favour of the accused on 14.2.1979. 3. 1, 7 and 8 were examined and warned by the police. It was represented that the civil suit filed by P.W. 7 ended in favour of the accused on 14.2.1979. 3. On the day of occurrence, i.e., on 16.2.1979 at about 7.50 a.m., P.W. 1 was proceeding to his office and when he was approaching near Chairmankadu, he was waylaid by both the accused and they pushed him down from the cycle. After he fell down, the first accused caught hold of his hands from behind while the second accused stabbed him indiscriminately with the knife M.O.I on his chest, right and left flanks, right leg, stomach and back at the instigation of the first accused to do away with him. While P.W.I tried to ward off the stab, he sustained a number of injuries on his hand. 4. On hearing the noise of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 3 came there and on seeing them the first accused picked up a stone and attempted to throw on P.W.I, who raised huo and cry and thereupon the first accused dropped and stone and ran away from place along with the second accused P.Ws.2 and 3 chased them to some distance and since they were threatened by the second accused, they returned to the scene place. P.W.6 and another also saw the accused running along the road and entering into a neighbouring field. A crowd was gathered near the scene and thereafter, P.W. 2 went to Sankagiri Police Station and gave the complaint, Exhibit P.1, P.W.1 was also taken to Sankagiri Government Hospital. P.W. 4, the Medical Officer, examined him and found on him the following external injuries: “1. A lacerated wound 3“x 17#x002F;2“ in the light upper arm. 2. A lacerated wound 3“x 1/2“ in the right hand dorsum. 3. Two lacerated wounds 3“x 1/4“x 1“, 1/8“x 1/8“ in opigastrium. 4. Three lacerated wound 1/2“x 1/8“x 1/8“, 1“x 1/8“x 1/8“, 1/2“x 1/8“x 1/8“ in the left palm. 5. A lacerated wound 1/2“x 1/8“x 1/8“ in the right palm. 6. A lacerated wound 1/2“x 1/8“x 1/8“ on the left side of hip. 7. A lacerated wound 4“x 1 1/2“x 1-1/2“ on the left side of chest X-ray chest - Surgical Emphysome right side chest wall. 8. A loop of intestine seen outside the abdomen in the right. 9. A lacerated wound over the back of right knew. 6. A lacerated wound 1/2“x 1/8“x 1/8“ on the left side of hip. 7. A lacerated wound 4“x 1 1/2“x 1-1/2“ on the left side of chest X-ray chest - Surgical Emphysome right side chest wall. 8. A loop of intestine seen outside the abdomen in the right. 9. A lacerated wound over the back of right knew. Joint.” and issued the wound certificate, Exhibit P-2. The entries made by P.W.4 in the Accident Register was marked as Exhibit P-3. He also sent intimation, Exhibit P-4 to the Police. 5. P.W. 11, S.I. of Police, registered a case and investigated the same. He examined the witness and arrested the second accused on 17.2.1979 at about 2.30 P.M., on the west of Salem-Sankagiri Railway line near Pakaliyur and he gave a statement the admissible portion of which was marked as Exhibit, the admissible portion of which was marked as Exhibit P-8 and in pursuance of the same, he produced M.O.I from the railway bridge. The first accused was also arrested at 1.30 P.M., on the same day. After completing the investigation, P.W. 11 laid the charge-sheet against both the accused. 6. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, filed 12 exhibits and marked 11 exhibits. 7. The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. The second accused has further stated that he was taken by P.W. 11 from his house on 16.2.1979 and when his father, the first accused and his mother came to the police station, he was also detained and this case has been foisted against them as the prosecution party belonged to the majority community in the village and they bent upon driving away the accused from the village and further two sons of the first accused were highly educated. 8. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. The accused were unsuccessful before the appellate Court. Hence, they preferred this revision. 9. It is represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the first accused died in May, 1983. 10. 8. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. The accused were unsuccessful before the appellate Court. Hence, they preferred this revision. 9. It is represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the first accused died in May, 1983. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that since the civil suit filed by P.W. 7, ended in favour of the accused on 14.2.1979, the accused had no motive to attack P.W. 1, but the immediate provocation was only on the part of P.W. 7 and his men and they were unsuccessful in the civil proceedings, that both the Courts below have failed to consider many salient points raised by the defence, but they mechanically accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were interested, without considering the inherent defects, that the positive case of the prosecution through the eye witnesses was that the second accused was having a sharp edged knife with which he stabbed P.W. 1 indiscriminately all over the body of P.W. 1 forcibly, while the first accused caught hold of both the hands of the victim from behind with the determination to kill P.W. 1, but the Medical Officer, P.W. 4 found only lacerated injuries and did not find even a single incised wound on the person of P.W. 1 and both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the same, but they tried to explain by observing that the victim P.W. 1 would have been attacked with the back portion of the weapon while it was not the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the eye witnesses and hence the medical testimony falsified the ocular testimony of eye witnesses in this case and further, the prosecution has not explained the reasons for not examining the injured, P.W. 1 for about 10 days till 25-2-1979 and the failure to do so would raise suspicion about the prosecution case, that the recovery of M.O. 2 was also falsified by the positive evidence of P.W.3 that the accused were taken by the police on the day of occurrence, i.e., 15.2.1979 itself and that since both the Courts below have overlooked the material evidence viz., the medical evidence, their acceptance of the evidence of eye witnesses was nothing but perverse and it resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and hence this is a fit case where inference is called for in this revision. 11. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no inconsistency between the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and further this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 12. The main “question involved in this (revision is, whether there was any conflict between the ocular testimony of eye witnesses and the medical evidence and whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is capable of sustaining the conviction and if so, whether this Court can invoke the revisional jurisdiction and interfere with the findings of the Courts below. 13. 12. The main “question involved in this (revision is, whether there was any conflict between the ocular testimony of eye witnesses and the medical evidence and whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is capable of sustaining the conviction and if so, whether this Court can invoke the revisional jurisdiction and interfere with the findings of the Courts below. 13. It is the positive case of the prosecution through the victim P.W. 1, that when he was proceeding on a bicycle, both the accused came and pushed him down and after he fell down, the first accused caught hold of his hands from behind while the second accused stabbed him with a very sharp edged knife on his chest, left and right flanks right hand, back and stomach and when P.W. 1 warded off the blows, he sustained a number of injuries on both the hands and his intestines also came out due to stabbing. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 was also to the effect that while the first accused caught hold of P.W. 1, the second accused stabbed him indiscriminately with the knife, M.O.1 all over the body P.W. 4, Dr. Jayalakshmi, examined P.W. 1 at 8.45 a.m., on 16.2.1979 and found that injuries 1 to 7 and 19 are ‘lacerated injuries and the 8th injury was a loop of intestine, which was seen outside the abdomen in the right and issued the wound certificate, Exhibit P-2. Though she had stated in the Chief-examination that all the above injuries are possible by stabbing with a knife M.O.1 at the time alleged, she has given a go-by in her cross-examination. It is worthy to extract the relevant portion for better appreciation of the rival contentions of both the parties. “…Usually if the person is stabbed by knife it will cause incised injuries. Except injury No.8 all other injuries are superficial lacerated injuries. I have not specifically described that injury No.8 either incised injury or stab injury or penetrated injury. It is possible that a bull gore can cause injury No.8. It is not necessary that injury No.8 could have been caused only by stabbing with knife. M.O.I has a pointed sharp end. Injury Nos.1 to 7 and 9 could have been caused only by stabbing with the handle portion of M.O.I. Lacerated injuries could have been caused by violent fall on sharp and hard projecting surface. It is not necessary that injury No.8 could have been caused only by stabbing with knife. M.O.I has a pointed sharp end. Injury Nos.1 to 7 and 9 could have been caused only by stabbing with the handle portion of M.O.I. Lacerated injuries could have been caused by violent fall on sharp and hard projecting surface. When I examined P.W. 1 externally I did not find any bleeding. " Thus it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 4 that she did not notice any incised wound on the person of P.W. 1, and according to her except injury No.8, all other injuries are superficial lacerated injuries. As regards injury No.8, she has not described the same either as incised injury or stab injury or penetrated injury and she has also agreed with the suggestion that it was possible by a bull gore P.W.I had categorically stated that M.O.I has a pointed sharp end and “injuries 1 to 7 and 9 could have been caused only by stabbing with the handle portion of M.O.I. The admission of P.W. 4, in the cross-examination had not been clarified by way of re-examination. It is significant to note that the fact that intestines came out on account of the stabbing was not even referred to in Exhibit P-1. In the face of the medical testimony of P.W. 4, if P.W.I was stabbed indiscriminately and forcibly with M.O. 1, which admittedly had a pointed sharp end with the intention to till when the victim was lying on the ground and caught hold of by the first accused, the nature of injuries would have been quite different from those injuries noted by P.W. 4. 14. The trial Court had not bestowed any attention on this aspect, but simply observed in para 2:5 of its judgment that since the loop of intestine came out and it was a serious injury, it cannot be said that the medical testimony was inconsistent with the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses. The appellate Court had not at all considered this aspect in its judgment. 15. Mr. The appellate Court had not at all considered this aspect in its judgment. 15. Mr. Sivasubramanian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, relied on the following decisions and submitted that there was inconsistency between the medical testimony and ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and it was a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the evidence and to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. In Hollu v. M.P. State Hollu v. M.P. State (1974)4 S.C.C. 300 :(1974) S.C.C. (Crl.) 462:A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1936: (1974) 3 S.C.R. 652 , the Supreme Court held as follows: “According to the eye-witnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence. Not one of the injuries found on the person of jagdeo and Padurn could be caused by a spear or an axe. The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying that the witnesses had not stated that the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon. “According to the High Court axes and spears may have been used from blunt side and therefore the evidence of the eye-witnesses could safely be accepted. We should have thought that normally when the witness says that an axe or a speare is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as blunt weapon”. In Ram Narain v. State of Punjab Ram Narain v. State of Punjab (1975) Crl L.J. 1500: (1975) 4 S.C.C. 497 :(1975) S.C.C. (Crl.) 571:A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1727 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows: “Where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case…..” In Piara Singh v. State of Punjab Piara Singh v. State of Punjab (1978) MLJ. (Crl.) 186:(1978) 1 S.C.J. 200:(1977) Crl.L.J. 1941: (1977) 4 S.C.C. 452 ,(1977) S.C.C. (Crl.) 614: (1978) 1 S.C.R. 597 ,A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2274 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows: “Where there is a glaring inconsistency between direct evidence and the medical evidence in respect of the entire prosecution story, that is undoubtedly a manifest defect in the prosecution case. Where the opinion of a medical witness is contradicted by another medical witness both of whom are equally competent to from an opinion, the opinion of that expert should be accepted which supports the direct evidence in the case”. In Milktyat Singh v. State of Rajasthan Milktyat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1981 Crl.L.J. 998:(1981) S.C.C. (Crl.) 638:A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1578 the Supreme Court held as follows: “Where in a murder case the witnesses categorically stated that the accused assaulted the deceased with spade but the doctor who held the autopsy of the deceased clearly stated that the injuries could be caused only by a Kassi (pickaxe) the accused was given benefit of doubt in view of the glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence….” In Soundarapandi v. State Soundarapandi v. State (1983) MLJ. (Crl.) 31:(1983) Crl.L.J. 1199:(1982) L.W. (Crl.) 92the following the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been held by this Court that when the prosecution evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and the accused has to be acquitted 16. The ratio decidendi laid down in those decisions will apply to the facts of the instant case. It is the positive case of the prosecution through all the eye witnesses that the second accused was having sharp knife with which he stabbed P.W. 1 indiscriminately all over the body while both the hands of P.W. 1 were caught hold of by the first accused and after he fell down from the cycle at the instigation of the first accused to do away with him. in the instant case, there was nothing to infer that the handle portion of the weapon might have been used to attack the victim, P.W. 1 to probabilise the opinion of the Doctor. It is significant to note that a person who had intended to do away with another person, would not have beat him with the handle portion and further it is highly improbable to catch hold of the sharp portion of the knife and beat with the handle portion of the same to cause a number of injuries. As stated by the Medical Officer, not even a single incised injury was caused to the victim P.W. 1. Thus, if P.W. 1 was stabbed forcibly with a sharp edged knife, certainly the injury sustained by him would be incised one and in any event, all of them would not be superficial lacerated injuries as noted by the Medical Officer. Further, the prosecution has not chosen to send the alleged bloodstained knife, M.O.I, for chemical analysis to find out whether there was any human blood and that too of the origin of the victim Even the recovery of weapon in pursuance of the statement of the second accused under Section 27 Cr.P.C., was falsified by the evidence of P.W. 3, who stated that the Inspector came on the same day within half an hour after the victim was taken to the hospital and he went to the village of the accused viz., Pakaliyur and caught hold of the second accused and brought him to the scene place. Thus, it is very clear that the eye witnesses were not speaking the whole truth and the incident might have taken place in some other manner. 17. As observed by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab Piara Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2275 (cited supra) in view of the fact that there is a glaring inconsistency between the evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence in respect of the entire prosecution and especially when there was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to explain the same, the prosecution has to fail. 18. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of M.P. v. Hari Ram State of M.P. v. Hari Ram (1983) Crl.L.J. 1638:A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1081: (1983)4 S.C.C. 453 and contended that the principles laid down therein are applicable to the facts of the instant case. I have carefully gone through the above decision and I find that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have analysed the evidence and held that in view of the admitted fact that the assailants were armed with knives and spears and in the face of the positive evidence of the eye witnesses that the accused who were armed with ballams (spares), plied or struck the deceased by lathi portion of the spears on the front side, which was fully corroborated by the medical evidence, which showed that the two lacerated wounds were on the right side of the front portion of the head, the presence of lacerated wounds would not falsify the prosecution case even though the accused were armed with sharp edged knives and spears. It was further observed that far from being inconsistent, the ocular evidence fully corroborated the medical evidence. The above decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case where the medical evidence ruled out completely the possibility of the occurrence having taken place in the manner spoken to by the eye witnesses. Criminal cases are not decided on mere possibilities but on probabilities. In view of the glaring inconsistency between the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses and the medical testimony, no explicit reliance could be placed on the evidence of the so called eye witnesses. Further in the instant case, though P.W. 1 was conscious and had mentioned about the manner of his attack within 45minutes of the occurrence to the Medical Officer, he did not give any complaint and his statement was admittedly recorded about 10 days after the occurrence i.e., on 25.2.1979. On going through the evidence available on record and the judgments of the Courts below, I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Courts below have ignored the important and relevant evidence while arriving at a concurrent finding in convicting the accused. 19. On going through the evidence available on record and the judgments of the Courts below, I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Courts below have ignored the important and relevant evidence while arriving at a concurrent finding in convicting the accused. 19. In Damadilal v. Parashram Damadilal v. Parashram (1976) 4 S.C.C. 855 : (1976) S.C.R. (Supp.) 645:A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2229 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is well established that if a finding of fact is arrived at ignoring important and relevant evidence, the finding is bad in law. (See Radha Nath Seal v. Haripada Jana Radha Nath Seal v. Haripada Jana A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1049 we therefore think that the High Court was within its jurisdiction in setting aside the finding of the lower appellate Court and restoring that of the trial Court on this point”. 20. In Essakki Thevar v. State Essakki Thevar v. State (1959)2 MLJ. 463:(1959) MLJ. (Crl.)841:I.L.R. (1960) Mad. 83:(1959) M.W.N. (Crl.) 841:(1959) M.W.N. 576:A.I.R 1960 Mad. 115:(1959) M.W.N. (Crl.) 136Ananthanarayanan, J. while considering the powers of the High Court in revision held as follows: “….The High Court could and does interfere in criminal revision, even upon findings of fact, and even though they may be concurrent findings of two Courts below, where the conscience of the Court is satisfied that, in the broad interests of justice, the conviction is not sustainable, or where, as in this case, the conviction is not sustainable in certain respects, because vital evidence has been overlooked, or has not been given due considerations.” 21. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu (1979) 2 S.C.J. 1:(1979) MLJ.(Crl.) 456: (1979) 1 S.C.C. 328 :(1979) Crl.L.J.594:(1979) S.C.C. (Crl.) 283:A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 663: (1979)2 S.C.R. 442 and submitted that in view of the principles laid down in the above decision, no interference is called in this revision. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in the above decision as follows: “…..although the revisional power of the High Court under S. 439 read with S. 435 is as wide as the power of Court of Appeal under S. 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under S.439 is to be exercised only in exceptional case when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice…..” Since in the instant case, as already observed, there is a glaring inconsistency between the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses and the medical testimony, which is undoubtedly a manifest defect in the prosecution case and since both the Courts below have overlooked the material evidence while arriving at a decision which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, the principles laid down in the abovesaid decision will apply to the facts of this case and it is a fit case where interference is called for. 22. It is worthy to mention here that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh (1981) Supp. (S.C.C.) 83:(1981) Crl.L.J. 1016:A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1415even while dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court, in revision against an order of acquittal, held that non-application of mind, non-consideration or improper consideration of material evidence, inconsistencies, faulty reasoning and lack of judicial approach etc., on the part of the lower Court, resulting in miscarriage of justice would constitute valid grounds for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal or order re-trial. Thus, on a consideration of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court with reference to the facts involved in this case, I am of the view that this is a fit case where interference is called for in this revision. 23. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Courts below are set aside and they are acquitted. The bail bond executed by them shall stand cancelled. This revision will accordingly stand allowed. Revision allowed.