Judgment : This Criminal Appeal No.511 of 1988 and Criminal Revision Case No.596 of 1988 arose out of one judgment rendered in Sessions Case No.10 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, of the five accused. Accused No.2 alone was convicted and other four accused have been acquitted. As against the conviction the Criminal appeal has been filed by A-2 and as against the acquittal the Criminal Revision Case has been filed by a private party viz., P.W.1, in the case against accused 1, 3, 4 and 5. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: Chinnappa Gounder (deceased in the case) was, a resident of Itchivalasu. P.W.1, Chidambaram is his son and P.W.2, Chinnammal is his wife. The five accused also are residents of the same village. A-5 is the son A-1 and A-2 is the son-in-law of A-1. A-4 is the elder brother’s son of A-1 and A3 is a relative of A-1. There was enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused in connection with lands and also money transaction. It appears one week before the incident the deceased Chinnappa Gounder and his another son Ramasamy questioned A-1 and his wife Nachayee as to how Nachayee could answer the calls of nature in the common cart-track. On 13 11.1986 at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.1, was lying on a cot near their cowshed. Chinnappa Gounder came there. Behind him the five accused came. A-2 recalled about Chinnappa Gounder’s behaviour in abusing them about a week ago and with a knife stabbed Chinnappa Gounder near his left eyebrow. When P.W.1., tried to prevent A-4 and A-5 caught hold of him and hit him with hand. Then A-2 stabbed him with knife in his head and on the right eye brow. A-3 took up a stone and threw it at the deceased. This caused injury in his nose and forehead. When P.W.l’s brother Ramasamy and his mother tried to prevent, A-2 with a knife stabbed P.W.2, at the left side of the head and near the left eyebrow. A-3 pushed her down and kicked her and beat her with hand. The injured shouted. Hearing this P.W.3, Jeevanandam and one Kuzhan-dasamy came there running, All the accused ran away. 3. The injured were taken to Erode Government Hospital. On the next day at 5.00 a.m.. A-3 pushed her down and kicked her and beat her with hand. The injured shouted. Hearing this P.W.3, Jeevanandam and one Kuzhan-dasamy came there running, All the accused ran away. 3. The injured were taken to Erode Government Hospital. On the next day at 5.00 a.m.. the Head Constable of Chithodu Police Station obtained a statement Ex.P-1 from P.W.1, Next day morning the injured Chinnappa Gounder was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. There on 111. 86 at 8.05 p.m. he died. After the investigation the accused were charged sheeted as follows: A-1 to A-4 and A-5 were charged under Sec.147, A-2 and A-3 were charged under Sec.148. A-1 and A-3 were charged under Sec.323, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were charged under Sec.324, A-1, A-4 and A5 were charged under Sec.302 read with 149, and A-2 and A-3 were charged under Sec.302 read with 34.I.P.C. 4. As stated above on consideration of the evidence the trial court acquitted accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 holding that the charges against them have not been proved and convicted A-2 alone under Sec.324 (2 counts) for the alleged injuries inflicted by him on P.W.1., and P.W.2. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal, but as aforementioned P.W.1 has filed the criminal revision case. 5. The Court below on appraisal of the evidence found, as regards the injuries said to have been inflicted by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5, that there is material discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also P.W.3. It has further found that P.W.3 could not have witnessed the occurrence because P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that he (P.W.3) asked them at the spot who attached them and then they told him that they were attacked by the accused. The lower Court has also adverted to the statement given by the deceased to P.W.5 doctor who treated him at the Erode Government Hospital that they were attacked by six persons. Now there are only five accused P.W.1., also in his evidence has stated that there were six accused and he did not know the same and residence of the sixth person and he does not know the identify of that person. 6. Now there are only five accused P.W.1., also in his evidence has stated that there were six accused and he did not know the same and residence of the sixth person and he does not know the identify of that person. 6. According to the prosecution the deceased died of injury Nos.4 and 6 found by the post-mortem Doctor P.W.7 and those injuries have been caused due to throwing of a stone by A-3 on the head of the deceased. But the court below on examination of the stone, M.O.4. which has been recovered as that stone, has said that stone could not have been lifted and thrown by one single individual. Therefore the trial court found that those injuries could not have been caused as alleged by the Prosecution. The doctor has stated that all injuries on the deceased including injuries 4 and 6 could have been caused by falling down on a rough surface. 7. The lower court has further found that no witness has stated that the deceased was pushed down, P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witness and their evidence in the circumstances of the case cannot be believed without any corroboration. Therefore as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased there is no satisfactory evidence as to which of the accused inflicted which of the injuries. As seen above even according to the deceased and also P.W.1 there was another person also with the accused party and he has not been impleaded as an accused in the case. This being the position I do not think that the order of acquittal of A-1 and A-3 to A-5 by the trial court can be interfered with in the revision filed by the private party. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that there was any defect in the conduct of the trial. Only on the ground that the evidence has not been properly appreciated the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. 8. As regards the appeal filed by A-2 he has been convicted for the alleged injuries caused by him on P.W.1 and P.W.2 with pen knife. As regards this P.W.1 and P.W.2 themselves have spoken and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence that the injuries, on them could have been caused by a knife. 8. As regards the appeal filed by A-2 he has been convicted for the alleged injuries caused by him on P.W.1 and P.W.2 with pen knife. As regards this P.W.1 and P.W.2 themselves have spoken and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence that the injuries, on them could have been caused by a knife. If these injuries had been caused by some other person it is unthinkable that P.Ws.1 and 2 would have blamed A2 leaving the real culprit. The occurrence has happened in the day light at 5.00 p.m. and therefore there could have been any difficulty regarding the identity of the assailant. Therefore as regards the alleged injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 by knife there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that it was A-2 who was responsible for it. Therefore, I find no merit in the criminal appeal also. 9. In the result, therefore the criminal appeal is dismissed. The criminal revision case also is dismissed. As regards the sentence of imprisonment for two years passed against A-2 by virtue of the Government orders viz., G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 21. 1989, G.O.Ms.No.781, dated 14. 1990, G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 22. 1992 and G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 20.2.1993 he is entitled for remission of the entire two years sentence of imprisonment. Therefore he need not surrender to serve the sentence of imprisonment.