Judgment : BELLIE, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case has been filed by the complainant P. W. I against the judgment dated 17. 7. 1987 rendered in S. C. No. 25/87 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, acquitting the respondents 1 to 15/accused 1 to 15. ( 2 ) THIS is a case of murder. There were 15 accused in the case. The Sessions Court after trial of the case, held that the case against the accused has not been proved and therefore acquitted all the accused. It appears that the State has not preferred any appeal. Aggrieved, P. W. 1, Sathakuppan, the petitioner herein, he chosen to file the criminal revision case against the judgment. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief isas follows: on 19. 1. 1985 all the 15 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Kannamar Koil Odai and the first accused killed one Muthuswamy by shoot him with a gun and the second accused attempted to kill P. W. 2 Ponnuswami and shot at him with a gun and the said Ponnuswami sustained injuries. Accused 2 to 15 abetted the first accused in shooting Muthuswami and at the same time accused 1 and accused 3 to 15 abetted the 2nd accused in shooting Ponnuswami. Subsequently, accused 1 to 3 with a view to review evidence burnt the dead body of Muthusamy. The further case of the prosecution is that accused 1, 10 and 4 were found in possession of guns and revolvers without licence. On these allegations accused 1 to 15 were charged as follows:a-1 to A-15 were charged u/s 148 I. P. C. A-1 was charged under section 302 I. P. C. A-2 to A-15 were charged under section 302 read with 149 I. P. C. A-2 was charged under section 307 I. P. C. A-1 and A-3 to A-15 were charged under section 307 read with section i49 I. P. C. A-1 to A-3 were charged under section 201 I. P. C. and a-1 to A-4 were charged under section 25 (1) (a) and (b) of the Arms Act. All the accused denied that they committed any offence. All the accused denied that they committed any offence. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge, on consideration of the evidence educed by the prosecution witnesses to establish the charges framed against the accused, came to the conclusion that none of the charges against any of the accused has been proved, and there for acquitted all the accused. Against this judgment P. W. 1 Sathakuppan has filed this criminal revision case. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing Mr. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/p. W. 1 and also on going through the judgment of the court below, I find that there is nothing warranting to interfere with that judgment. The court below has given many reasons as to why the prosecution case cannot be believed. At the outset it may be mentioned that whereas the occurrence took place on i9. 1. i985, the complaint on the basis of which investigation started is dated 9. 7. 1985. Thus there is a delay of more than six months in presenting the complaint by P. W. I to the police. This delay, according to the learned trial Judge, has not been satisfactorily explined at all. Secondly, it must be remembered that it is the prosecution case that after the deceased Muthuswami died his body was burnt and there is absolutely no trace or any evidence that would help to establish that Muthuswami was indeed dead. According to P. W. 4 the wife of deceased Muthuswami, Muthuswami went alone with his brothers P. W. 2 Satha Ponnusami and P. W. i Satha Raju and a son of another brother, and Muthuswami did not return and she was waiting that he would come back and after hearing a rum our that her husband has been done away with, she gave a complaint dated 8. 5. 1985 on the basis of which as case was registered as man missing. In her complaint she has stated that she suspects Muthuswami brothers, P. Ws. 2 and 7 are responsible for the missing of her husband. Nothing further proceeded on the basis of that complaint. It was only on the basis of the complaint given by P. W. I on 9. 7. 1985, it appears, the investigation has been st2fted. But, as per the judgment of the court below, P. W. I has been treated as hostile. P. W. 7 is another eye-witness. Nothing further proceeded on the basis of that complaint. It was only on the basis of the complaint given by P. W. I on 9. 7. 1985, it appears, the investigation has been st2fted. But, as per the judgment of the court below, P. W. I has been treated as hostile. P. W. 7 is another eye-witness. But, the court below has found that he has given contradictory versions, one version in the court, another version during the investigation, and yet another version curing his examination before court. I find that this observation of the lower court is quite correct. Another eye-witness is P. W. 2, who according to the prosecution has sustained injury in the occurrence itself. Though the occurrence happened on i9. i. i985, P. W. 2 has given a statement to P. W. 20, the investigating officer, only on i3. 7. 1985. But, during his examination before court he has stated that on 20. i. i985 he went to P. W. 19, the Inspector of Police. Sathamanaglam Police Station, and made a complaint and the Inspector obtained his signature only in a blank paper and told him to go and admit himself in a private hospital for the treatment of the injuries. There is nothing on record to show that it happened as he stated. P. W. i9, the Inspector has not been asked any question about this aspect of the matter. Further, the initial investigation was made by P. W. 19 and naturally no such statement was recorded from P. W. 2. It appears in respect of the very same crime number in this case, P. W. 2 has obtained anticipatory bail. This gives grave suspicion whether P. W. 2 himself would have been involved in the occurrence. According to the prosecution, P. Ws. 1,8 and 13 were also eye-witnesses, but neither P. W. 2 nor P. W. 7 had whispered that they were also eye witnesse3 to the occurrence. The evidence of P. W s. 8 and 12 is that the occurrence happened at 7 a. m. and the body was burnt after two hours. But the evidence of P. W. 12 the mother of the deceased, is to the effect that the occurrence has happened at 6. 00 P. M. This is indeed a vital contradiction. Therefore; rightly the court below disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 12 also. But the evidence of P. W. 12 the mother of the deceased, is to the effect that the occurrence has happened at 6. 00 P. M. This is indeed a vital contradiction. Therefore; rightly the court below disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 12 also. P. W. 13 is yet another eye witness. Though she has stated that A-1 and A-2 shout at the deceased, she has not given any statement to that effect to the police at all. Therefore, rightly her evidence has also been rejected. Mos. 2 and 3 are said to be the guns which were used by A-1 and A-2. P. Ws. 2 and 7 assert that these were not the weapons that were used. According to the prosecution these weapons were recovered at the instance of A-1 and A-2. These circumstances also very much effect the case of the prosecution. ( 6 ) THE prosecution has sent some leaves as burnt leaves for analysis report. But, the report Ex. P19 states that the leaves sent for analysis were not burnt, but they were only old leaves. For all these reasons, it is difficult to believe that Muthuswami was done to death by A-1 anda-2 in the manner alleged by the prosecution. As stated above, there is no evidence regarding the corpus delicti and hence there is no clear evidence that Muthuswami was killed and burnt. Thus, I find no merits in the criminal revision case. Accordingly it is dismissed. Revision dismissed.