MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. This Criminal Revision by the complainant is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-7-1985 passed by Sri Kartar Singh the then ll Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad whereby he acquitted all the seven accused of the charges framed under Sections 147, 325 and 307 both read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. 2. I have heard Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the complainant-revisionist and Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents at length and perused the record carefully. 3. In brief, the prosecution case was that on 19-12-1982 at about 8. 00 a. m. Faquira, son of Jahura, and his co-villager Zamil, son of Gafura, were going to bus station. When they arrived in front of the house of Jangi and Niyaji, sons of Natthoo, they were suddenly surrounded by Akhtar and six others. All the accused were armed with lathies. On the exhortation of Akhtar to kill Faquira, all the accused assaulted him (Faquira) mercilessly with their lathies. He fell down after sustaining fracture of his limbs. On the hue and cry raised by Faquira and Zamil, Akhtar asked his associates to throw Faquira in the canal and they all picked him up for this purpose. On account of arrival of several vilagers, he was left there and the assailants ran away. The incident was witnessed by Zamil, Imamuddin, Guljar and Sabir. The injured was taken to District Hospital, Ghaziabad for medical examination of his injuries and treatment. 4. Faquira got a report prepared by Yashpal Sharma and sent his report to P. S Mussorie where a case was registered on the same day at 12. 15 p. m. 5. Dr. A. K. Saxena examined the injuries of Faquira on the same day at 11. 00 a. m. He found twelve injuries in all on different parts of body, advised X-ray and admitted the injured. 6. After X-ray, a number of fractures were detected. 7. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the seven assailants named in the F. I. R. 8. All the accused were charged under Sections 147, 325/149 and 307/149 I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty. 9. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 Faquira, the injured and the informant, P. W. 2 Zamil, P. W. 3 Guljar Ahmad and P. W. 4 Dr. A. K. Saxena. 10. All the accused were charged under Sections 147, 325/149 and 307/149 I. P. C. to which they pleaded not guilty. 9. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 Faquira, the injured and the informant, P. W. 2 Zamil, P. W. 3 Guljar Ahmad and P. W. 4 Dr. A. K. Saxena. 10. Accused in their statements denied all the accusation and pleaded that the miscreants /dacoits used to visit the house of Faquira and a quarrel took place regarding division of the looted property. The dacoits had come to the house of Faquira on the impugned night and had assaulted him. The accused examined one Jangi in their defence. 11. After having considered the entire evidence on record led by the parties, learned Judge found that prosecution could not bring its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution was found to be doubtful and as such all the accused were acquitted of all the charges. Hence this revision. 12. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that an accused may be convicted on the basis of solitary testimony of a witness. In the instant case, Dr. A. K. Saxena found as many as 11 injuries on the person of Faquira and there were a number of fractures. The assailants made an attempt to commit murder and he fully supported his version in the Court. However, the learned Judge acquitted all the accused and the judgment is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that two witnesses Zamil who was accompanying the injured and Guljar fully supported the prosecution story and corroborated the testimony of the injured. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the learned Judge committed no illegality in acquitting the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence by reliable evidence and I. O. did not collect blood-stained earth from the scene of occurrence. Admittedly P. W. 2 Zamil is an interested witness and is a pocket witness of the injured. The presence of P. W. 3 Guljar Ahmad at the time of occurrence appears to be highly doubtful and he could not reach the scene of incident from his house. Admittedly, there was long standing enmity between the parties and as such the Court below was wholly justified in acquitting the accused. 14. The presence of P. W. 3 Guljar Ahmad at the time of occurrence appears to be highly doubtful and he could not reach the scene of incident from his house. Admittedly, there was long standing enmity between the parties and as such the Court below was wholly justified in acquitting the accused. 14. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also perused the entire record, including statements of the injured and his witnesses. Admittedly, Faquira and Akhtar contested the election of village Pradhan in which Faquira won the election. His election as village Pradhan was challenged and Akhtar filed an election petition. Moreover, the parties were litigating in Courts since long and there was long standing enmity. Enmity is a double-edged weapon and it cuts both ways. According to Faquira and Zamil, all the seven accused armed with lathies came out of the house of Jangi and Niyazi and surrounded Faquira and assaulted him with lathies. Contrary to this, it was alleged in the F. I. R. that all of a sudden Akhtar and six others surrounded the injured and Zamil in front of the house of Jangi. The informant nowhere mentioned that the assailants were hidden in the house of Jangi and they came out from his house. Both Faquira and Zamil admitted in clear words that they were very close to each other and Zamil was a pocket witness of injured. Zamil admitted himself to be a man of the group led by the injured. 15. According to the injured, Maarpit took place at the Chaupalay near the house of Jangi. Zamil gave contradictory statement on this point and claimed that Maarpit took place in front of the house of Niyaji and not at the Chaupalay. Thus, I find inconsistency in the evidence of two witnesses regarding place of incident. P. W. 2 Zamil was also given a lathi blow by the assailants. He, however, could not name the accused who actually gave him a lathi blow. 16. P. W. 3 Guljar Ahmad did not support the prosecution story and was rightly disbelieved by the learned lower Court. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that he named Akhtar only as the assailant in his statement given to the I. O. He further claimed that he did not disclose the names of other accused because they did not assault Faquira. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that he named Akhtar only as the assailant in his statement given to the I. O. He further claimed that he did not disclose the names of other accused because they did not assault Faquira. P. W 3 Guljar Ahmad, in fact, gave death blow to the prosecution case. He admitted that his house was situate at a distance of 500 meters from the scene of incident. In view of the distance between the scene of incident and the house of witness it was not possible for him to reach the place of occurrence and see the assailants causing injuries to Faquira. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and scrutiny of the evidence. I find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. In my opinion, learned Judge committed no error in appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution and he rightly acquitted all the seven accused. Consequently, I hold that this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 18. The revision is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .