JUDGMENT : The revision petitioner who was examined as P.W.2 in C.C.No.47 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -II, Sankari, has preferred the revision against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Salem in C.A.No.125 of 2005 acquitting the accused 1 to 4, setting aside the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Sankari, convicting the accused for various offence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a pathway dispute between P.W.1 and the family of the accused. On 112. 1999, at about 3.00p.m., the accused were present at the disputed place and at that time the quarrel arose between P.W.1 and the accused. The first accused caught hold of the hands of P.W.1 and the second accused beat P.W.1 with bamboo stick on his right hand, fourth accused beat with iron rod on the left leg, third accused beat on the back side, as P.W.2 intervened, the fourth accused beat her with the iron rod on the head. This occurrence had also been witnessed by P.W.6. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are injured witnesses is well corroborated by P.W.6. Though the trial Court convicted the accused relying on the evidence considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, the appellate Court had acquitted the accused for the flimsy reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused party are aggressors who had entered the place and therefore though the accused claimed that they were injured, the injury on them need not be explained. It is not necessary that in all cases, the injury of the accused should be explained. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first accused and the third accused are injured in this case and the third accused had given a complaint to the Police and on the basis of the complaint given by him, a case was also registered. Further the wound certificate of the accused were also marked as defence exhibits. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that none of the witnesses had explained about the injury on the accused and as such the prosecution party has not come forward with the true version. 5. This Court perused the Judgment given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and other records. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that none of the witnesses had explained about the injury on the accused and as such the prosecution party has not come forward with the true version. 5. This Court perused the Judgment given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and other records. Though the trial Court had convicted the accused relying on the eye-witness, the appellate Court had acquitted the accused mainly for the reason that the accused 1 and 3 were injured in the same incident, but none of the witnesses were able to say how the accused was injured and they could not give any explanation to the injury sustained by the accused. Further it is only the third accused who had given the complaint to the Police which was registered in Crime No.1155 of 1999. Further the learned Sessions Judge has held that though it is stated by the witness that the third accused attacked by P.W.1 on his both hands and also on the back, no injury was found on the back side and further the injury found on the hand is only a contusion injuries which could not have been caused by stabbing with the iron rod. 6. This Court considered that the reasons given by the appellate Court for acquitting the accused are sustainable. As no miscarriage of justice caused, this Court is not interfering with the revision. This criminal revision petition is dismissed accordingly.