Judgment :- The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of acquittal pronounced by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram dated 18.02.2005 in S.C.No.269 of 2004. The de-facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 before the Trial Court is the petitioner in the Criminal Revision case. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows: (i) A Complaint was lodged on the file of the Baluchetty Chatiram Police Station, Kancheepuram District by the petitioner herein/de-facto complainant (P.W.1) stating that Nesamani, Yesu and Renu (the respondents 2 to 4 herein) made an attempt to cause the death of the petitioner herein, his wife Prema and his two children, due to previous enmity, by locking the door from outside while they were sleeping in their house and setting fire to the said house. It had been stated in the said complaint that the said occurrence took place at about 10.30 P.M. on 25.09.2003. It had also been stated in the said complaint that they broke open the door using a crowbar and came out of the burning house. A further averment had also been made in the complaint to the effect that when they came out of the house, the respondents 2 to 4 and some other persons shouted at them to cut the petitioner herein, chased them upto the main road and gave up the chase and retreated from the place on seeing other persons coming on the main road. (ii) P.W.9 - Ramamoorthy, the then Inspector of Police, Baluchetty Chatiram Police Station, received the said complaint at 2.30 A.M. on 26.09.2003 and registered a case against the respondents 2 to 4 in Crime No. 408/2003 of the above said police station for alleged offences punishable under sections 307 and 436 I.P.C. The said house which was damaged in fire belong to P.W.4 -Jayaraman and the petitioner herein was residing in the said house as a tenant under PW.4, paying a monthly rent of Rs.350/- After registration of the case, P.W.9 himself took up the investigation of the case, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P7-observation mahazar and Ex.P8-rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. He also recovered the material objects marked as M.O.1-partly burnt wooden reaper, M.O.2-burnt pulmarah reapers and M.O.3-partly burnt pulmarah reapers, under Ex.P9 mahazar. He also recovered the material objects marked as M.O.1-partly burnt wooden reaper, M.O.2-burnt pulmarah reapers and M.O.3-partly burnt pulmarah reapers, under Ex.P9 mahazar. During the course of investigation he arrested the respondents 2 to 4 (Accused 1 to 3) on 211. 2003 at about 5.00 A.M.at Sirukaveripakkam bus stop and sent them for judicial Custody. After completing investigation, P.W.9 submitted a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,, Kancheepuram alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 307 and 406 I.P.C by the respondents 2 to 4 herein (A1 to A3). The M.Os. 1 to 3 and the photographs taken in the scene of occurrence along with their negative marked as M.O.s 4 and 5 were also submitted to the court by the Investigating Officer under Ex.P10-form 95. (iii) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram took the final report on file as P.R.C.No.18/04 . Copies of the documents proposed to be relied on by the prosecution were supplied free of cost under section 207 Cr.P.C. to the respondents 2 to 4 herein (A1 to A3) and the case was committed for trial to the court of session as one of the offences alleged was triable exclusively by the court of session. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet took it on file as Sessions Case No. 269 of 2004 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram for disposal according to law. (iv) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram framed charges for offences punishable under section 307 I.P.C. (four counts), an offence punishable under section 436 I.P.C., and also an offence punishable under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act, 1992 against respondents 2 to 4 herein. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to be tried. Consequently a trial was conducted in the trial court and the petitioner herein (de-facto complainant) was examined as P.W.1 in part. At that point of time, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge chose to make Balasundaram and Siva, (respondents 5 and 6 herein) as accused 4 to 5 in the said sessions case. Consequently a trial was conducted in the trial court and the petitioner herein (de-facto complainant) was examined as P.W.1 in part. At that point of time, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge chose to make Balasundaram and Siva, (respondents 5 and 6 herein) as accused 4 to 5 in the said sessions case. Consequently charges under section 448, 294 (b) and 324 IPC (2 counts) were framed against Balasundaram, the 5th respondent herein(A4) and for offences under section 307 (4 counts), 436 IPC and section 4 of Tamil nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act 1992 were framed against the 6th respondent(A5). Thereafter P.W.1 was recalled and examined further with reference to the additional charges also. Totally 9 witnessess, including P.W.1, were examined on the side of the prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused persons. Ten documents and five M.Os were also produced on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused persons under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard arguments advanced on either side and pronounced a judgment on 18.02.2005 acquitting the respondents 2 to 6 herein (A1 to A5) of all the offences with which they stood charged. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal and challenging the legality of the judgement of acquittal, the Revision petitioner/de-facto complainant (P.W.1) has come forward with the present Criminal Revision case on various grounds set out in the grounds of Criminal Revision case.. .4. The point that arisesfor consideration in this Appeal is as follows: ."Whether there is any defect or illegality in the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court on 18.02.2005 warranting interference in this criminal revision case filed at the instance of the de-facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1. in the trial court?" 5. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.S.Baskaran,, learned counsel for the petitioner/de-facto complainant(P.W.1.),, Mr.R.Munniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) representing the first respondent, Mr.V.P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 , Mr.S.Loganathan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Mr.Kanchi G.V.Mathiagzhagan,learned counsel for the sixth respondent . The Judgment of the Court below and other materials on record were also perused. .6. The Judgment of the Court below and other materials on record were also perused. .6. The de-facto complainant on whose complaint the case was registered which resulted at the first instance in the prosecution of the respondents 2 to 4 herein (A1 to A3) for offences punishable under sections 307 I.P.C.(4 counts) and 436 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and loss) Act 1992 and thereafter prosecution of respondents 5 and 6 herein(A4 and A5) also along with the respondents 2 to 4 herein pursuant to the additional averments made by him during the course of his examination as P.W.1 before the trial court,, has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case, against the judgment of the trial court acquitting all the accused persons(Respondents 2 to 6 herein) of all the offences with which they stood charged. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Criminal Revision case that the court below having arrived at a conclusion that the Revision petitioner was forced by the Investigating Officer to give a number of complaints and at last registered the case based on one of such complaints selected by the Investigating officer against three persons (Respondents 2 to 4 / A1 to A3) alone, whereas he was informed by the revision petitioner that there were six persons involved in the commission of the offences, that the investigation of the case had not been done in an unbiased and proper manner and that the same was done with the intention of screening and safeguarding real culprits, has done the opposite by acquitting all the accused persons citing the said reason, as a ground for acquittal and that the said approach made by the trial court is against the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. 7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner that the court below having disbelieved the evidence of P.W.9-Investigating Officer and P.W.7 examined as the person who took photographs of the scene of occurrence and having accepted the evidence of P.W.8 as the person who took photographs of the scene of occurrence on the advice of the Revision petitioner should have believed the evidence of P.W.1 also regarding the occurrence and convicted the accused persons based on the same corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 and that the judgment of the court below acquitting the accused person is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner also contended that the very approach made by the court below, as evidenced by its judgment, will show perversity in the finding arrived at by the court below justifying the exercise of the revisional powers of this court to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) representing the first respondent and the learned counsel for the other respondents have contended that the present Criminal Revision case itself is an example of abuse of process of court; that except the testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the charges framed against the accused persons; that there are many pitfalls and improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.1 itself which shall make his testimony an unreliable and unbelievable one; that though the court below might have made certain observations against the Investigating officer as if he was helping to screen the offenders that alone would not be enough to hold that the charges against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the very fact that P.W.1 himself admits the investigation to have been done not in a proper manner, shall be enough to support the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial court that none of the charges against the accused persons were proved beyond reasonable doubt and that there wont be any justification for convicting the accused persons based on the interested testimony of P.W.1 alone . The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the other respondents have also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 will show concoction and gradual improvement with the intention of roping in all the five accused persons. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the other respondents have also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 will show concoction and gradual improvement with the intention of roping in all the five accused persons. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the other respondents that the Court below had committed a grave error in clubbing the occurrence that allegedly took place on 25.09.2003 with previous occurrence alleged by P.W.1 to have taken place on 01.09.2003 and prosecuting respondents 5 to 6 herein (A4 and A5) after adding them as additional accused (A4 and A5) to be tried along with accused Nos 1 to 3; that the respondents 5 and 6 who were thus irregularly and erroneously added as accused No.4 and 5 and made to face trial along with A1 to A3 cant be asked to face further ordeal after having been acquitted by the trial court and that the correction of the said mistake committed by the trial court by the same court in its Judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with. It is their further contention that if the judgment of acquittal is upset it shall have the effect of once again jeopardizing the liberty of the accused persons without sufficient material for no fault on their part, when the mistake itself had been committed by the trial court based on the ingenious concoction made by P.W.1. 9. This court took into consideration the submissions made on either side. Upon considering the points raised on either side and after perusing the records, this court is of the view that there is no merit in the Criminal Revision Case and the same deserves to be dismissed and that any other view will result in grave miscarriage of justice and gross injustice to the accused persons. The reasons for the said decision can be found in the following discussions. 10. Ex.P1 is the complaint setting the criminal law in motion. It was lodged at 2.30 A.M. on 26.03.2009. The reasons for the said decision can be found in the following discussions. 10. Ex.P1 is the complaint setting the criminal law in motion. It was lodged at 2.30 A.M. on 26.03.2009. Based on Ex.P1, Ex.P6-First Information Report was prepared by P.W.9 and the case was registered against respondents 2 to 4 alone for offences punishable under sections 307 IPC and 436 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.408 of 2003 on the file of Baluchetty chaitiram Police Station without any avoidable delay. The F.I.R. and the complaint had reached the court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, at 30. A.M. on 26.09.2003 itself. In the said complaint P.W.1 had stated that there was previous enmity between himself and one Jayaraman leading to the registration of a criminal case which was pending investigation against the said Jayaraman. The said Jayaraman is none other than P.W.4. Admittedly he was the owner of the house in which the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 was residing as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.350/- However, the complaint had been prepared in such a way capable of creating an impression that P.W.1 was the owner of the said house. Of course it is true that in the complaint the names of Respondents 2 to 4 (A1 to A3) alone were mentioned. However, it has also been stated in the complaint that along with those three persons, some other persons were also there and all of them chased the de-facto complainant (P.W.1) and his family members in order to kill him. It is the evidence of P.W.1 before trial court that at the first instance, he gave complaint against six persons, but the Inspector of Police (P.W.9) scolded him with filthy language and asked him how did he venture to give a complaint against six persons whereas he himself was a migrant to the village of occurrence from another village. It is his contention that the Inspector of Police wanted him to give a complaint only against one. His further submission is to the effect that he was made to write ten such complaints and atlast the Inpector of Police agreed to get a complaint from P.W.1 implicating three persons alone and that out of the said ten complaints the Inspector selected one and registered a case. His further submission is to the effect that he was made to write ten such complaints and atlast the Inpector of Police agreed to get a complaint from P.W.1 implicating three persons alone and that out of the said ten complaints the Inspector selected one and registered a case. If at all the said story propounded by P.W.1 could be true, he would be able to state what happened to other complaints. No explanation is forthcoming from P.W.1 in this regard. 11. Apart from that, the said story propounded by P.W.1 during trial sounds quite unbelievable. If it is true that he had been forced to restrict the case against three persons alone, such a conduct on the part of the Inspector of Police (P.W..9) could have been reported to the higher officials of the police department. Of course, it is the deposition of P.W.1, that he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and only on his indulgence further action was taken. If at all it could be true, P.W.1 could have produced a copy of such complaint/letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police and the acknowledgement if any therefor. But no such document was produced. Atleast he could have requested the trial court to summon the Assistant Superintendent of Police or the Superintendent of Police or any other officer in the office of the Superintendent of Police to be examined to prove the contention of P.W.1 that the Inspector of Police (P.W.9) had obtained a complaint against three persons alone by coercing him to restrict the number of accused to three. P.W.1 knew well that a case was registered based on Ex.P1 - complaint against respondents 2 to 4 (A1 to A3) alone. If at all Ex.P1 had been obtained by coercion and an attempt was made by P.W.9 to screen other offenders, P.W.1 could have either approached High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for necessary direction or the Judicial Magistrate concerned by way of private complaint furnishing the entire and true details of the occurrence and thereby put a check on the alleged attempt of P.W.9 to screen the other offenders. But, P.W.1 had not done so. But, P.W.1 had not done so. The same will go to show that P.W.1, who gave a complaint against three named accused (Respondents 3 to 4/Accused 1 to 3) and some unnamed accused persons, made all kinds of improvements when he was called as the first witness on the side of the prosecution to depose before the trial court. This court wonders how P.W.1 was allowed to deal with the extraneous matters viz., the occurrence that allegedly took place more than twenty days prior to the date of occurrence concerned in this case. Apart from permitting P.W.1 to narrate the details of the occurrence that allegedly took place on 25.09.2003, the court below also chose to rope in the respondents 5 and 6 herein and prosecute them for offences allegedly committed by them on 01.09.2003. Even then, the complaint allegedly given regarding the said previous occurrence that took place on 01.09.2003 has not seen the light of the day. Neither the complaint allegedly given to the Superintendent of Police on 09.09.2003 as per the testimony of P.W.1 nor a copy of the same, not even the acknowledgement has been produced either by the prosecuting agency or by P.W.1. Therefore the entire evidence adduced by P.W.1 regarding the alleged previous occurrence has to be eschewed from the purview of consideration in this case. 12. Coming to the alleged occurrence that took place on 25.09.2003 during night hours for which the present case has been registered, the evidence of P.W.1 seems to be self-contradictory and hence unbelievable. As pointed out supra, except the interested witness P.W.1, there is no other witness supporting the prosecution case. According to the prosecution case, while P.W.1, his wife and children were sleeping in the house, the accused persons locked the door from outside and set fire to the house. The evidence of P.W.1 as to how they were able to come out is self contradictory. In Ex.P1 he has stated that he took a crowbar, broke open the door and then came out of the house along with his wife and children . While he was deposing on 27.09.2004, P.W.1 stated that the owner of the house(P.W.4) took a crowbar, levered the door and opened the bolt whereupon the P.W.1 and his family members were able to come out. The said version of P.W.1 is directly conflicting with the allegation made in Ex.P1. While he was deposing on 27.09.2004, P.W.1 stated that the owner of the house(P.W.4) took a crowbar, levered the door and opened the bolt whereupon the P.W.1 and his family members were able to come out. The said version of P.W.1 is directly conflicting with the allegation made in Ex.P1. Again when he was examined on 112. 2004 he reverted back to his original stand that he himself took the crowbar, broke upon the door and came out. He also admitted that such a crowbar was not handed over to the police. At one place, he would say that he got awakened by the heat generated by the flames after the house was set on fire . At another place he has stated that he saw the accused persons setting fire to the house proclaiming that 6 persons were doing "cremation" for 4 persons. 13. Regarding motive, it is the version of P.W.1 that he raised objection when the accused persons played cards in the thatched shed put up behind the house in which P.W.1 was residing and refused to give extension connection to the bulb for illuminating the said shed. To prove the motive, which led to the previous occurrence on 01.09.2003 as per the testimony of P.W.1 there is no other supporting evidence, either oral or documentary. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that at the first instance, when he refused to give extension connection for gambling the accused persons informed him that they would get the consent of the landlord(P.W.4) and that on the 2nd occasion he refused to do so when P.W.4 himself informed him that he could provide such electric connection to the thatched shed. On the other hand, P.W.4 himself has deposed to the effect that P.W.1 was quarrelsome right from the date on which he became a tenant under P.W.4 and that the neighbours were complaining about his quarrelsome attitude. There is also an admission of P.W.1 that before the alleged occurrence that took place on 25.09.2003, he had informed the landlord/P.W.4 of his intention to vacate the house. P.W.4, in his evidence has stated in clear and unambiguous terms that on the date of occurrence viz 25.09.2003 between 2.30 and 3.00 P.M., P.W.1 came to the house of P.W.4 and informed him that he had already vacated the house . P.W.4, in his evidence has stated in clear and unambiguous terms that on the date of occurrence viz 25.09.2003 between 2.30 and 3.00 P.M., P.W.1 came to the house of P.W.4 and informed him that he had already vacated the house . There is no specific denial of this aspect by P.W.1 when the same was put to him by way of a suggestion. In his evidence, while giving an answer to the said suggestion, P.W.1 simply stated that he did not personally go and inform P.W.4. There is also an admission that he informed P.W.4 of his preparedness to vacate the house of P.W.4 instead of complying with the direction of P.W.4 to give electric connection to the thatched shed for the on going gambling at that place. 14. There is also confusion in the evidence of P.W.1 regarding when and how police were informed of the occurrence that allegedly took place on 25.09.2003. He would state at one place that he went to the police station between 10.15 to 10.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence (25.09.2003). . However at another place he would state that he gave complaint to the police by contacting the police station over his mobile phone. A third version of P.W.1 is that regarding the occurrence concerned in this case, he gave a complaint at 5.30 A.M. on 26.09.2003. Yet another version of P.W.1 is that he went to the police station along with one Anbazhagan at about 11.20 P.M. on 25.06.2003. 15. P.W.7 has been examined as the photographer engaged by the police to take photographs of the scene of occurrence. He turned hostile and denied having taken photographs. He has also stated that by profession, he was only a lorry driver and not a photographer. When the said person examined as the photographer who took snaps at the scene of occurence has betrayed, P.W.8 was introduced as an additional witness probably at the initiative of P.W.1 Through P.W.8, M.O. 4 - photographs and M.O. 5 negatives have been marked. Even P.W.8 has not clearly supported the evidence of P.W.1 that it was P.W.1, who engaged him to take photographs. He has simply stated that a customer invited him to take photographs. If it is so, how M.O.s 4 and 5 came to the court and how the police were able to get those documents? There is no explanation. Even P.W.8 has not clearly supported the evidence of P.W.1 that it was P.W.1, who engaged him to take photographs. He has simply stated that a customer invited him to take photographs. If it is so, how M.O.s 4 and 5 came to the court and how the police were able to get those documents? There is no explanation. If at all, P.W.1 had engaged P.W.8 to take such photographs he would have got the counterfoil of the receipt/bill. The same has not been produced. P.W.1 has not explained how the photographs happened to be in the possession of police for being produced in the case. If the said aspect is taken into consideration, one has to come to the necessary conclusion that introduction of P.W.8 was also an attempt to improve the case of prosecution. 16. P.Ws.2 & 3 were examined as attestors of observation Mahazar and seizure Mahazar. Though they have admitted their signatures in the said documents, they have not fully supported the prosecution case. They have stated that M.O.s 1 to 3 had already been taken from the burnt house and kept infront of the said house and they affixed their signatures as witnesses for recovery of the said material objects. The evidence of P.W.5 - the station fire officer shall not be useful to prove the prosecution case since he has stated he had not given any opinion regarding the cause of the fire. P.W.6 has turned hostile. The only evidence in support of the prosecution to some extent is the interested testimony of P.W.1. There are contradictions in material aspects showing concoction and embellishment making his testimony totally unreliable. Under such circumstances, though not for the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, but for the reasons enumerated above the trial court could not have come to any other conclusion than the one it has arrived at viz that none of the charges against the accused persons were proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused were entitled to be acquitted. Therefore this court finds no defect or infirmity or the illegality in the judgment of the court below acquitting the respondents 2 to 6 herein (A1 to A5) of all the offences with which they stood charged. Therefore this court finds no defect or infirmity or the illegality in the judgment of the court below acquitting the respondents 2 to 6 herein (A1 to A5) of all the offences with which they stood charged. This Court is also convinced that any interference with the said acquittal based on the unreliable evidence of P.W.1 will result in miscarriage of justice and will cause injustice to the respondents 2 to 6(A1 to A5). There is no merit in the criminal revision case. The Criminal Revision Case can even be construed to be an example of abuse of process of Court and thus the Criminal Revision case deserves to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed.