Judgment : This revision is against the order of acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No. 211 of 1987 dated 13. 1988 for the offence under Secs. 148, 302 read with Secs. 149, 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused and the case of the prosecution is as follows: The accused and the deceased and his family members belonged to Seelampatti Village within Tiruchuli Police Jurisdiction. There were two groups in the village, one headed by one Samuel, father of the first accused and for the other group one Paranjothi was the leader. Originally Paranjothi was collecting the subscription from all his community people in the village for the welfare of his people and when this was entrusted with Samuel for another period, Samuel who collected the subscription, had misappropriated and therefore a section of the group refused to give him subscription and the villagers were divided into two groups The villagers are predominantly people of Harijan Christian community. One Anburaj of this village had married a girl by name Yesammal, closely related to P.W. 2. They were living at Madras and due to some misunderstanding between the couple, mainly suspecting the fidelity of Yesammal, Anburaj returned to his village Seelampatti, but the deceased Dharmaraj went to Madras and brought Yesammal to the village for the purpose of settlement of the dispute between the husband and wife and he was also successful in uniting them. Three days before the occurrence, on Friday, the united couple on the efforts of Dharmaraj left for Madras. On the next day when P.Ws. 2 and 4 were chatting the second accused, who is the brother of Anburaj, scolded P.W. 2 with filthy words for uniting Yesammal with her husband, as she was a woman of bad character. P.W. 2 told this to her husband deceased Dharmaraj who pacified her to be calm. On the next day, P.W. 1 the brother of the deceased Dharmaraj, who was employed in Tuticorin came to the Village Seelampatti for the purpose of obtaining a school certificate for his son for employment and P.W. 2 told him about the conduct of the second accused in abusing her with fifty words. All the accused are related to each other. On 212. All the accused are related to each other. On 212. 1986 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W. 1 deceased Dharmaraj and P.W.2 were proceeding along the street to question the second accused about his conduct and when they were in front of the house of one Pandi, fourth accused was coming from the opposite direction. P.W. 1 told fourth accused about the conduct of second accused in scolding his sister-in-law with abusive words. There was a wordy exchange between them and fourth accused, who went to his house, came along with other accused armed with aruval, velstick and knife stick and accused 1 to 3 attacked the deceased Dharmaraj by cutting on his head and also stabbing him on his right shoulder with velstick. Accused 3 to 5 attacked P.W. 1 with aruval and velstick. When P.W.3 intervened, the 5th accused beat her with knife fixed in stick. Dharmaraj fell down with serious injuries and all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Dharmaraj was carried to his house and when he was laid down in front of his house, he succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 3 and others witnessed the occurrence. P.W. 11, the Village Administrative Officer, who heard about the incident came to the house of P.W. 1 and recorded the statement Ex.P-1 from him. He took P.Ws. 1 and 2 Tiruchuli Police Station where P.W. 12, the head constable registered the case and sent the injured persons to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital for treatment. P.W. 6, the medical officer attached to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital, after giving First Aid to P.W. 1, referred him to Madurai Government Hospital for intensive treatment. P.W. 7, the doctor attached to Madurai Government Hospital, admitted P.W. 1 as out-patient on 212. 1986 at 9.55 p.m. for treatment. P.W. 14, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation and inspected the scene of occurrence and after inquest sent the body for postmortem. P.W. 9, Dr. Mohanraj attached to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital conducted the post-mortem. After investigation, P.W. 14 laid the charge-sheet against these respondents/accused. 2. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, acquitted all these respondents holding that the offences against them were not proved. Hence, P.W. 2, the wife of the deceased, has filed this private revision challenging the order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. It is true that in the private revision under Secs. 2. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, acquitted all these respondents holding that the offences against them were not proved. Hence, P.W. 2, the wife of the deceased, has filed this private revision challenging the order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. It is true that in the private revision under Secs. 397 and 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidence cannot be canvassed and the patent errors in the finding or the irregularity in the proceedings are the matters to be taken into consideration. In Ayodhya v. Ramsumer Singh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1415, the Supreme Court has held that when the Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused by ignoring the probative value of the First Information Report and the reliable testimony of eye-witnesses without considering the material evidence on record, the faulty reasoning of the Sessions Judge will be a ground to set aside the order of acquittal. In Arunachalam v. Sethurathnam, 1980 L.W. (Crl.) 7 Summary of Cases, the Supreme Court observes that when the reasons given for acquitting is wholly unsatisfactory the interest of justice demands the interference with the order of acquittal. Therefore, if the reasoning given by the trial court is erroneous and faulty and the trial court did not take into consideration the material evidence to support the prosecution certainly the revisional court has to interfere to set right the error. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. Sankarasubbu, referring to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, submits that every reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reject the prosecution case is not only injudicious but also patently faulty and not in conformity with the well-laid judicial principles and therefore this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given number of reasons which, according to him, weakens the prosecution case. In paragraph 17, he has referred to the three eye-witnesses examined in this case and he makes an observation that though there are number of houses near the place of occurrence P.Ws. 1 to 3 who are closely related to the deceased, alone have been examined to speak about the occurrence and somehow the prosecution has avoided to examine the independent persons. 1 to 3 who are closely related to the deceased, alone have been examined to speak about the occurrence and somehow the prosecution has avoided to examine the independent persons. On a reference to the rough sketch Ex.P-22, we are able to see that there are number of houses near the place of occurrence and P.W. 3 Antony is also residing a few feet away in north western direction from the place of occurrence. As all these parties are Harijan Christians, everyone in the hamlet is related to each other and therefore it cannot be stated that independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence discloses that A-2’s brother Anburaj has married Yesammal, who is closely related to P.W.2 and all of them are related to each other when the occurrence has taken place within the residential locality of these parties naturally everyone witnessing this occurrence must be related to the accused party, as well as the party of the victim. Therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not justified in observing that the independent witnesses were not examined in this case. Even when independent witnesses were not examined, if the witnesses examined are reliable and trustworthy, the court need not go in search of evidence from other independent witnesses. Therefore, the above observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be a circumstance to go against the prosecution case. 6. In paragraph 18, it is observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was a faction in the village, one group under the leadership of Paranjothi and the other group headed by Samuel and if the words of Paranjothi were not obeyed, it will have adverse effects. It is true the evidence of P.W.2 discloses that there was a faction among the people of this community and this incident is not on account of that faction, but purely on the personal dispute between the second accused and P.W.2. P.Ws. It is true the evidence of P.W.2 discloses that there was a faction among the people of this community and this incident is not on account of that faction, but purely on the personal dispute between the second accused and P.W.2. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that the deceased Dharmaraj arranged for the reconciliation of the strained relationship between the brother of the second accused Anburaj and his wife Yesammal whose chastity was disputed, the second accused is said to have scolded P.W. 2 for the steps taken by her husband Dharmaraj and only on account of this conduct of the second accused scolding P.W. 2, P.W. 1 brother of the deceased Dharmaraj went to question second accused and the wordy quarrel culminated in this carnage event. Therefore, the faction in the village has nothing to do with this incident and that circumstance cannot come in aid of either party. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has proceeded to give much weight to the attack on the house of one Munusamy, who was not examined. The learned Judge gives importance to the suggestion that the two groups in the village have political affiliations, one group supporting All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.) and the other group supporting Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.) and the flag post was out by one party leading to fight between the two groups. The learned Judge further observes that the house of Munusamy was attacked by the persons belonging to the prosecution party and that the suggestion on the side of the accused during cross-examination that when the house of Munusamy was ransacked and damaged, the materials of the building like tiles, falling on the assailants, had caused injury on P.W. 1, cannot be ignored for the reason that the medical officer P.W. 6 has stated that injury Nos. 6 to 12 on P.W. 1 could have been caused by falling of the tiles and sticks from the house and therefore this evidence is another circumstance to suspect the prosecution case. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to read the evidence in full. P.W. 1 in his evidence has more clearly and categorically stated that only after the incident of cutting him and his brother, the tiles in the house of Munusamy were broken. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to read the evidence in full. P.W. 1 in his evidence has more clearly and categorically stated that only after the incident of cutting him and his brother, the tiles in the house of Munusamy were broken. Even though P.W. 1 has admitted that the house of Munusamy was attacked his specific version is that after attacking his family members, the tiles of Munusamy were broken. On a reading of the evidence of P.W. 1, it transpires that Munusamy also belonged to the group of P.W. 1 and therefore there is no necessity for the prosecution party to go and attack the house of Munusamy. Further when it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that after attacking him and his brother, the house of Munusamy was attacked, I am unable to understand how the learned Additional Sessions Judge has interpreted the evidence in such a way that prosecution witnesses went and attacked the house of Munusamy and the materials of the damaged house fell on P.W. 1 causing injuries. The learned Judge has commented on the non-examination of said Munusamy. There is no charge in this case for damaging the house of Munusamy. When the evidence reveals that subsequent to this occurrence the house of Munusamy was damaged, there is no necessity for examining Munusamy because he is not the eye-witness for this occurrence and the damage to his house was not in the same transaction of this occurrence. Therefore, the view on this aspect by the learned Additional Sessions Judge also cannot be supported. 7. Another circumstance taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is the description of the assailants in the accident register Ex.D-1 prepared by P.W. 7 as 5 unknown persons. P.W. 1 who was taken to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital where his injuries were examined by P.W. 6, who referred him to Madurai Government Hospital for better treatment and when P.W. 1 was brought to Madurai Government Hospital P.W. 7, the medical officer admitted P.W. 1 in the hospital at 9.55 p.m. P.W. 7 has recorded in the accident register Ex.D-1 that the injured told him that he was assaulted by 5 unknown persons on 212. 1986 at Seelampatti at his house. 1986 at Seelampatti at his house. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given much weight to this document holding that as P.W. 1 was not able to identify the assailants, this circumstance also is an infirmity in the prosecution case. On a perusal of the other documents placed before the court, the recording in Ex.D-1 cannot be a statement of P.W. 1. Soon after the occurrence P.W. 1 has given the statement Ex.P-1 to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W. 11, who took him to the Tiruchuli Police Station, where the complaint was registered at 12.00 Noon. Ex.P-1 complaint was thereafter sent to Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, who received the First Information, Report at 02.00 p.m. itself. Therefore, within three hours, the complaint has reached the court and in the complaint P.W. 1 has specifically mentioned the names of all these accused. P.W. 2 also sustained injuries in the same incident and when P.W. 2 was taken to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital along with the P.W. 1, in the accident register annexed with Ex.P-3, the doctors has recorded that 5 known persons attacked her at 09.00 a.m. with velstick and aruval. In the wound certificate Ex.P-2, issued for P.W. 1 by P.W.6, it is not specifically mentioned whether he was attacked by known persons or unknown persons. But in the accident register attached to Ex.P-3, it is mentioned that P.W.2 was attacked by 5 known persons with velstick and aruval. Somehow, in Ex.P-2 the doctor had failed to record about the assailants of P.W. 1 whether they were known or unknown persons. On the other hand, as it is recorded in the accident register for P.W.2 that the assailants were known persons, P.W. 1 also should have mentioned that the assailants were known persons. When P.W. 1 has specifically mentioned in his complaint Ex.P-1 which reached the court by 02.00 p.m. that the assailants were known persons and also has mentioned all the names of the assailants it is doubtful whether he would have mentioned to P.W. 7 in Madurai at 0.55 p.m. that he was attacked by unknown persons. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have given importance to Ex.D-1 prepared by P.W. 7 in the later point of time when already the identity of the accused has been mentioned in the records that came into existence in the earliest point of time. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have given importance to Ex.D-1 prepared by P.W. 7 in the later point of time when already the identity of the accused has been mentioned in the records that came into existence in the earliest point of time. Therefore, the description in Ex.D-1 cannot be an infirmity in the prosecution case and the learned Judge need not have given much importance to this document. 8. Another aspect referred to by the learned Judge is that in the wound certificate Ex.P-2 it is mentioned that P.W. 1 was attacked by aruval without mentioning any other weapon whereas the doctor P.W. 6 has spoken that injuries No. 6 to 12 could not have been caused by an aruval and therefore the medical evidence of P.W. 6 is not supporting the versions of P.W. 1. As mentioned above, in the accident register recorded for P.W. 3, the weapons used in the occurrence are mentioned as aruval and velstick. We cannot expect that an injured person, who was in the pang or pain when taken to the doctor to mention all the details and all the weapons used against him, to the doctor. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that he was cut by aruval by the fourth accused and the third accused beat him with velstick and fifth accused beat him with kathikambu. So according to P.W. 1, the stick portion of the velkambu and kathikambu were used against him for beating in addition to the cutting with aruval by the fourth accused. The cutting by aruval had caused severe injuries on him and therefore P.W. 1 might have been very particular to describe about the weapon which caused the severe injuries. The non-description of the other weapons by the injured person, cannot be a circumstance to completely disbelieve the version of P.W. 1 when especially in the other accident register, the weapons used are clearly mentioned. Therefore, this reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reject the prosecution case, also is not acceptable. .9. The learned Judge has given another reason that the injuries Nos. 3 and 4 found on the deceased Dharmaraj could not have been caused by stabbing with the velstick as per the evidence of P.W. 9 and as the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is another circumstance to suspect the prosecution case. .9. The learned Judge has given another reason that the injuries Nos. 3 and 4 found on the deceased Dharmaraj could not have been caused by stabbing with the velstick as per the evidence of P.W. 9 and as the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is another circumstance to suspect the prosecution case. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 found on the deceased have been described by P.W. 9, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, and these injuries are punctured wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm over the right shoulder in front side and injury No. 4 is also a punctured wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm on the right hip in the lateral aspect. No doubt, P.W. 9 has spoken in his evidence that these two injuries could not have been caused by a velstick though P.Ws. 1 and 3 have spoken that third accused stabbed the deceased with the M.O. 4 velstick. However, P.W. 9 post mortem doctor would admit in his evidence that injury Nos.3 and 4 could have been caused by a sharp projecting article. The velstick also is a sharp edged weapon and when the doctor has given his opinion that a sharp edged projecting material can cause such an injury, I am unable to understand how a velstick cannot cause such injury. As injury Nos.3 and 4 are punctured wounds, only a sharp longitudinal instrument or weapon could have caused such injuries. Therefore, it is more likely that the weapon like velstick could have caused those injuries. As the eyewitnesses have spoken that the deceased Dharmaraj was assaulted with velstick, their evidence has to be given weight than the opinion evidence of P.W. 9. Therefore, this reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also not convincing. .10. Another reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that even though Ex.P-7 is said to be the carbon copy of Ex.P-1, there is variation between these documents and therefore Ex.P-1 should have been created subsequently for the purpose of this case. Therefore, this reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also not convincing. .10. Another reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that even though Ex.P-7 is said to be the carbon copy of Ex.P-1, there is variation between these documents and therefore Ex.P-1 should have been created subsequently for the purpose of this case. The reason for arriving at such conclusion is that in Ex.P-1, the name of Subburaj is inserted and the name of Subburaj is not found in the carbon copy Ex.P-1 and similarly the signatures of P.W. 1 and the attestor Samuel is not found Ex.P-7 and therefore according to the learned Judge Ex.P-1 should have been created subsequently. On a comparison of Ex.P-7 with Ex.P-7, there cannot be a second opinion that Ex.P-7 is a carbon copy of Ex.P-1. It is true that the name of Subburaj is inserted in the second page of Ex.P-1 whereas that correction has not been carried out in Ex.P-7. Even though the signatures of the complainant P.W. 1 and the attestor Samuel were obtained in the original Ex.P-1, in the carbon copy, their signatures were not obtained and their names are written describing that they had signed in Ex.P-7 as complainant and attestor. It may be true that the name of Subburaj was inserted subsequent to the complaint of Ex.P-1. The introduction of the name of Subburaj is by insertion in between the lines. As that correction was not carried out in Ex.P-7 carbon copy, I am unable to understand how it can be stated that Ex.P-1 must be a fabricated document. At the most, it can be stated that the introduction of Subburaj is a later development. But there is no material to hold that Ex.P-1 is a fabricated document. As Ex.P-7 is only a carbon copy, the signatures of complainant and the attestor were not obtained in the carbon copy. Therefore, this circumstance also cannot be taken to hold that Ex.P-1 is a subsequently created document with the aid of a blank signature. Therefore, this reasoning also is not sound. 11. One more reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that there is no evidence for the motive for this occurrence. This reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge exposes only his total non-application of mind in this case because P.Ws. Therefore, this reasoning also is not sound. 11. One more reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that there is no evidence for the motive for this occurrence. This reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge exposes only his total non-application of mind in this case because P.Ws. 1 and 2 have spoken elaborately about the quarrel between P.W. 2 and the second accused two days prior to the occurrence and they have also spoken that as P.W. 2 was scolded by the second accused with abusive words, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went along with the deceased Dharmaraj to question about the conduct of the second accused. As P.W. 1 who was in Tuticorin came to his native village only on the previous day of the occurrence he along with his brother Dharmaraj and sister-in-law P.W. 2, went to enquire about the abusive words used against P.W. 2, P.Ws. 1 to 3 have spoken that as the fourth accused happened to come on the way and when the fourth accused was told about the conduct of the second accused, a wordy quarrel between them led to the use of violence by these accused against P.Ws. 1 and 2 and deceased Dharmaraj. Therefore, it is surprising that how the learned Additional Sessions Judge is able to observe that there is no evidence for the motive for this occurrence. 12. The last ground given in the judgment is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated to the doctor P.W. 6 that they were attacked near their house, but the prosecution case is that they were attacked opposite to the house of one Pandi and there is inconsistency in the version as to the place of occurrence. The plan prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex.P-22 shows that the house of Pandi is only about 65’ near the house of the deceased Dharmaraj. The prosecution witnesses have spoken that the occurrence took place only in front of the house of one Pandi. As the houses of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Pandi are only at a distance of 65, probably might have told the doctor P.W. 6 that she was attacked near her house. In Ex.P-2, there is no mention that P.W. 1 was attacked in front of his house. Therefore, this reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to acquit the accused also is not acceptable. 13. In Ex.P-2, there is no mention that P.W. 1 was attacked in front of his house. Therefore, this reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to acquit the accused also is not acceptable. 13. Therefore, on a scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find that the reasoning given by him are not only lacking judicial approach, but also they are faulty resulting in the miscarriage of justice and the interference of this Court is justified to set aside the order of the court below. As the reasoning given by the court below are found to be faulty, the matter is to be remitted back for fresh consideration of the evidence. 14. In the result, the order of acquittal is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration by the court below from the evidence available on record. The criminal revision case is allowed.