( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2005, dated 11-01-2007 passed by the learned ii Additional District and Sessions Judge, east Godavari district at Amalapuram, whereby and where under the first petitioner (A-1) has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment (Hereafter 'r. I. ') for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment (Hereafter 's. I. ') for four months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indianpenal code (Hereafter I. P. C) and the petitioners 2 and 3 i. e. A-3 and A-4 have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo S. I. for four months each. The petitioners herein will be referred as they are arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : All the accused and material prosecution witnesses are residents of saripalli village within the jurisdiction of Uppalaguptham police station. On 03-06-2003, at about 10-00 p. m. one Geddam srinu who is handicapped was sleeping near ambedkar statute by keeping his three wheeler rickshaw by his side, one korukonda Jeevarathnam woke up G. Srinu and asked him to bring his three wheeler rickshaw. G. Srinu refused to accede to the request of K. Jeevarathnam, then k. Jeevarathnam is alleged to have pushed g. Srinu and taken away the rickshaw. On 04-06-2003 in retaliation to that k. Krupavaram and K. Jeevarathnam are alleged to have attacked one Geddam nageswara Rao and others and beat them with sticks and caused injuries. As a result of this incident, Criminal cases in Crime No. 52 of 2003 and 53 of 2003 under Sections 324 read with 34 of I. P. C. have been registered in uppalaguptham police station. As things stood thus, on 06-06-2003 at about 01-00 p. m. when Korukonda John (P. W. I) and his son Korukonda Krupanandam (P. W. 2) were sitting near the mechanic shop of P. W. 1, a-1 to A-13 along with others armed with knives, axes and iron rods attacked P,w. 1 proclaiming that P. W. 1 should not be spared and he should be killed. A-1 beat PW. A-1 beat PW. 1 on his head with iron rod, A-2 is also alleged to have beat on the head of P. W. 1 with iron rod, A-3 beat P. W. 1 on his chest and stomach with a stick, A-4 beat P. W. 1 on his thighs with a stick, A-5 and A-6 beat him with sticks indiscriminately, A-7 to A-11 also beat P. W. 1. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that P. Ws. 2 to 6 have witnessed the incident. Then PW. 1 gave a written complaint to the police on the same day at 02-30 p. m. basing upon which a case in crime No. 54 of 2003 under sections 147, 148, 307, 324 read with 149 of i. P. C. was registered. Then, P. W. 1 was sent to government Hospital, Amalapuram for better treatment. A-8, A-10, A-11 were arrested on 07-06-2003, A-1 to A-7, AS, A-12 to A-14 were arrested on 09-06-2003. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in support of its case, examined P. Ws 1 to 9 and got marked exs. P-1 to P-17 and MOs. 1 to 3 material objects were marked. Onbehalf of the defence, none were examined and Ex. D-1 portion of 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 4 statement was marked. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate found A-7 to a-14 not guilty for the charges leveled against them i. e. under Section 307 read with 149 and 148 of I. P. C and accordingly acquitted them. The learned Magistrate however found A-1, a-3, A-4 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 I. P. C. and A-2, A-5 and a-6 were also found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C, A-l to a-6 were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 148 I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate convicted A-1 to A-6 to undergo R. I. for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S. I. for four months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 i. P. C. A-1, A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S. I. for four months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 i. P. C. A-1, A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S. I. for a period of four months each. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the appellants preferred an appeal, the learned Sessions judge, allowed the appeal in part and set aside the conviction of A-1 to A-6 for the offence punishable under Section 148 I. P. C. However, the conviction of A-1, A-3 and a-4 for the offence punishable under section 324 I. P. C. was confirmed but, the sentence was modified to undergo R. I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of rs. 100/- in default to undergo S. I. for a period of four months. A-3 and A-4 also sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S. I. for four months. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused Sri G. Simhadri, submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, in view of the quarrels that occurred on 03-06-2003 and 04-06-2003. It is his submission that P. W. I is a drinker and that he fell down on a heap of stones and sustained injuries and that he was shifted to Hospital by a police constable of Amalapuram police station and taking advantage of the same, the petitioners and other accused have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also his submission that according to the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place at about 01-00 p. m. and that report was given at the police station at 02-45 p. m. and from there p. W. 1 was sent to Amalapuram, which is at a distance of about 20 kilometers from uppalaguptham police station and in all probabilities, P. W. 1 could not have reached hospital before 04-00 p. m. It is his submission that surprisingly the police of uppalaguptham had not taken P. W. 1 to the hospital but, a constable from Amalapuram police station had taken PW. 1 to the hospital. 1 to the hospital. It is his further submission that as per Ex. P5 medical Certificate, P. W. 1 reached the hospital at 01-45 p. m. and that he informed the doctor that the incident occurred at 11-00 a. m. and four known persons beat him with sticks and iron rods. It is also his submission that as per in initial version, the incident took place at the mechanic shop of p. W. I but the evidence shows that the incident had taken place near the shop of one devarapalli Tatha Rao and that scene of offence has been shifted. It is also his submission that all the alleged eye witnesses who are closely related to P. W. 1 did not come to the rescue of P. W. 1 and that their conduct is unnatural and in view of these inconsistencies and improbabilities, the prosecution version cannot be believed. It is also his submission that the Courts below have failed to read the evidence in proper perspective and that there is misreading of evidence and therefore the judgments of the courts below have to be set aside otherwise, the same may result in lopsided injustice. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that P. W. 1 is injured witness and that evidence of P. Ws 2 to 6 and also the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of P. W. 1 and that much importance need not be given to the minor discrepancies. It is also submitted that both the Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence found the accused/a-l, A-3 and A-4 guilty and no interference is required. ( 10 ) NOW the points that arise for consideration are : (1) Whether there is any misreading of evidence and if so whether revisional powers have to be exercised in this case? (2) Whether the version of prosecution witnesses as far as A-1, A-3 and a-4 are concerned, can be accepted or whether the entire prosecution case has to be thrown out? ( 11 ) IT is settled legal position that revisional power of the High Court should be exercised only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on a point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. Normally, re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in revision. ( 11 ) IT is settled legal position that revisional power of the High Court should be exercised only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on a point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. Normally, re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in revision. But, where in a case justice require interference for a correction of a manifest illegality or for the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice, the Revisional Court may re-appreciate the evidence. However, in a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence tentamounting to perversity such finding can be certainly interfered in Revision. ( 12 ) ENMITY between the accused and the victim is double-edged weapon, which may provide incentive for the crime and also provide reasons for falsely implicating the accused. It is also settled law that the evidence of witnesses who are inimical towards the accused should be scrutinized carefully. The important point to be considered is whether the accused has been falsely implicated in the case or not? The accused who committed the offence should not escape the punishment but at the same time, no innocent person should be convicted. The cardinal principle that "let nine guilty persons escape the punishment but, one innocent should not be punished" still holds good. Because, if one innocent is punished, the injury caused to that innocent person or to his family members can never be compensated. Holding trial against such innocent persons itself amount to harassment and convicting of an innocent person is not only illegal but inhuman. Therefore, the Judges must be very careful, they have to read the evidence carefully. The courts have to examine whether the genesis of crime has been suppressed, whether an innocent person has been falsely implicated in a criminal case, whether there is any motive to implicate innocent persons in a criminal case, whether the prosecution version is natural, whether the evidence of witnesses is trustworthy, whether the Court can repose confidence in such witnesses and can safely convict the accused, whether the circumstances point out the guilt of the accused or the circumstances show that the prosecution version is improbable and unbelievable? It is also settled law that merely because a witness is an interested witness or inimical towards the accused, his evidence cannot be totally discarded. However, the same has to be appreciated carefully. It is also settled law that merely because a witness is an interested witness or inimical towards the accused, his evidence cannot be totally discarded. However, the same has to be appreciated carefully. It is also settled law that where it is possible to separate the chaff from grain, falsehood from truth, the evidence in part can be acceptedbut whereas it is not possible to separate chaff from grain and falsehood from truth, the entire case has to be thrown out. It is also settled law that where two views are possible, the view that is favourable to the accused shall be adopted. In a case between Bibi Singh v. State of Uttara pradesh (1) 1992 Cri. L. J. 1510 it was held as follows: "if there are omissions, contradictions and exaggerations in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,such evidence can not be held reliable and credible in the eye of Law. It is also settled law that minor contradictionsin the statement of witnesses is not fatal for prosecution. Where there are interested witnesses, eye witnesses' account would require a careful independentassessment and evaluation for their credibility. The conduct of the witnesses and whether their version is consistent or not and whether their version is probable or not and whether there is any ring of truth in the prosecution case or not have to be carefully considered. " ( 13 ) IT is most unfortunate that, the Courts below have not discussed some of the important aspects of this case. The material variation in the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 8/ the doctor who treated P. W. 1 was not taken into consideration. According to P. W. 1, on 06-06-2003 at about 01-00 p. m. while he was present at his son's mechanic shop situated at Saripalli village, main road, all the accused armed with axes, sticks, iron rods, proclaiming that P. W. 1 should not live, attacked on him. His further case is that he ran towards the shop of D. Tatha Rao, where the accused had surrounded him. It is also his evidence that A-1 beat him with iron rod on his right side of his head saying "lanja kodukuni brathakanivva kudadu, champeyandi. " then, he received bleeding injury and fell on the ground. His further case is that he ran towards the shop of D. Tatha Rao, where the accused had surrounded him. It is also his evidence that A-1 beat him with iron rod on his right side of his head saying "lanja kodukuni brathakanivva kudadu, champeyandi. " then, he received bleeding injury and fell on the ground. According to him, A-2 also beat with iron rod on right side of his head and caused injury by the side of the first injury. He further deposed that A-4 beat with a stick on his both thighs and right side of his ankle, a-3 beat him on his chest and stomach, A-5 and A-6 beat with sticks indiscriminately all over his body. He says P. Ws. 2,3 and 4 came there and on seeing them all the accused ran away. According to him, P. Ws. 2 to 4 shifted him to Uppalaguptham police station and he presented Ex. P1 report to the police, then, he was referred to Government Hospital, amalapuram. P. Ws. 2 to 4have also deposed almost in the same lines in which P. W. 1 had deposed. Their evidence is almost parrot like. ( 14 ) NOW, it has to be seen, whether p. Ws. 2 to 4had in fact witnessed the incident and whether their version is natural and probable? P. W. 2 is no other than the son of p. W. 1. He says he was standing at a distance of 50 meters from the scene of offence where p. W. 1 was beaten. He admitted that he did not try to rescue P. W. 1 nor tried to secure anybody in the vicinity. He has also admitted none of the accused beat him. Coming to the evidence of P. W. 3, PW. 1 is junior paternal uncle of P. W. 3. P. W. 3 also admitted that he lodged a complaint against culprits with regard to the incident that occurred on 04-06-2003. Admittedly, P. W. 3 also did not intervene while P. W. 1 was being beaten. According to him, he was also not seen by the accused. P. W. 4 is the younger brother of p. W. 1, he too admitted that he did not try to rescue P. W. 1 from the hands of the accused of course, he stated that due to fear of the accused. However, it is a case of P. Ws. According to him, he was also not seen by the accused. P. W. 4 is the younger brother of p. W. 1, he too admitted that he did not try to rescue P. W. 1 from the hands of the accused of course, he stated that due to fear of the accused. However, it is a case of P. Ws. 2 and 3 that on seeing them the accused ran away. According to P. W. 4, he did not state before police as in Ex. P4 to the effect that on seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene. A reading of evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 gives an impression that their conduct is unnatural, if at all they were present when P. W. 1 was being attacked and they had seen the incident from the beginning to end in all probabilities, they would not have kept quiet and would have come to the rescue of P. W. 1. ( 15 ) A careful reading of evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 shows that their evidence is parrot like. The attribution of overt acts by each accused in sequence clearly shows that their evidence is parrot like. Their version that on seeing them the accused ran away also shows that there was no possibility for them to witness the entire incident. However each witness narrated the incident as if he had seen from beginning. Since, their version is parrot like and their conduct is unnatural their evidence which is partisan cannot be accepted. Then, there remains the evidence of P. W. 1 alone. Whether the evidence of P. W. 1 can be accepted? Whether there is any ring of truth in his evidence? Whether he is a trustworthy witness? No doubt, the medical evidence on record shows that P. W. 1 sustained injuries. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt to say that P. W. 1 sustained injuries on the date of incident. Though the doctor P. W. 8 stated that the injuries sustained by P. W. 1 are possible by fall from a cycle on a heap of stones but considering the place of injuries and nature of injuries, it appears there is nothing to disbelieve the version of PW-1 that he sustained injuries in an attack on him. ( 16 ) AS seen from the contents of F. I. R. / ex. ( 16 ) AS seen from the contents of F. I. R. / ex. P-6, Saripalli village is at a distance of 10 kilometers from Uppalaguptham police station. According to P. W. 1, the incident occurred at about 01-00 p. m. P. W. 1 went to police station and lodged a complaint at 02-30 p. m. It is the case of prosecution that then, pw. 9 who was working as Sub Inspector of police, Uppalaguptham police station registered the case and issued F. I. R. Ex. P-6. Then, he referred P. W. 1 to the Government hospital, Amalapuram. P. W. 8 is the doctor who examined P. W. 1, according to P. W. 8, he examined P. W. 1 on 06-06-2003 at 01-45 p. m. It is not clear from the evidence what is the distance between Amalapuram to uppalaguptham police station. However, when the case was registered at 02-30 p. m. and when P. W. 1 was referred to the government Hospital after registration of the case, there is no possibility to examine p. W. 1 at 01-45 p. m. at Government Hospital, amalapuram. According to PW. 8, the doctor who examined P. W. 1, the injured informed him that he received injuries at 11-00 a. m. on 06-06-2003 and that the injured further informed him that he was beaten by four known persons. The evidence of P. W. 8 is based upon the extracts of Accident Register i. e. Ex. P5. First of all, there is no need for the doctor to give false evidence, his evidence is based upon the entries made by him in the accident register. P. W. 8, the doctor being an independent witness, his evidence must be given due weightage. Thus, the evidence of p. W. 8 shows that the alleged incident occurred at 11-00 a. m. on 06-06-2003. According to P. W. I, it took about one and half hours for him to go to hospital after the incident. Therefore, if the time of treating p. W. 1 is taken as 01-45 p. m. , it is clear that the report was not given at 02-45 p. m. In all probabilities, the incident must have occurred at about 11-00 a. m. According to p. W. I he went to Uppalaguptham police station and lodged a complaint. But Ex. P5 shows that Amalapuram police constable brought P. W-1. But Ex. P5 shows that Amalapuram police constable brought P. W-1. The said constable is not cited as a prosecution witness in charge sheet. It is also not mentioned in charge sheet that a constable of Amalapuram had taken P. W. 1 to the hospital. The explanation of investigating Officer that since Amalapuram constable was readily available at police station, Uppalaguptham and therefore he was sent along with P. W. 1 appears to be an after thought since it is not based on any record. As seen from the contents of F. I. R. the incident occurred near the mechanic shop of p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 but, as seen from the evidence, the incident occurred at the shop of d. Tatha Rao. Unfortunately, both the Courts below have not even touched the evidence of p. W. 8/doctor who categorically deposed that p. W. I informed him that he received injuries at 11-00 a. m. on 06-06-2005 and that there were only four known assailants. Both the courts have also not considered whether the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 is parrot like or not, whether the conduct of P. Ws. 2 to 4 is natural or not? The Court may not accept a part of evidence of a witness and when such part of evidence goes to the root of the case, the Court cannot simply ignore the same. Thus, it appears to be a clear case of misreading of the evidence which resulted in gross injustice and which required to be corrected in revision. ( 17 ) FROM the above referred facts and circumstances; it is clear that the incident as stated by P. W. 1 did not occur as mentioned in F. I. R. Thus, the genesis of the case appears to have been suppressed. Therefore, the evidence of P. W-1 cannot be accepted on its face value. Admittedly quarrels ensued between the accused party and the prosecution party on 03-06-2003 on 04-06-2003 and two Criminal cases were already registered and this is the third case which reported within two days after the registration of earlier two cases in Crime nos. 52 of 2003 and 53 of 2003 of uppalaguptham police station. Admittedly quarrels ensued between the accused party and the prosecution party on 03-06-2003 on 04-06-2003 and two Criminal cases were already registered and this is the third case which reported within two days after the registration of earlier two cases in Crime nos. 52 of 2003 and 53 of 2003 of uppalaguptham police station. ( 18 ) IT is a case of P. W. 1 that A-1 and A-2 beat him with iron rods, A-3 to A-6 beat him with sticks and all other accused also beat him with sticks. In the F. I. R. he had mentioned 13 names however, the police filed charge sheet against 14 accused. According to P. W. 1, the accused had also armed with knives, axes and sticks. However, the injuries sustained by P. W. 1 according to P. W. 8 are only six as mentioned below: (1) A laceration of about 5 cms x 1 cm. x 1 cm. over the right frontal region red in colour. (2) A laceration of 1 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. over the right leg red in colour. (3) Abrasion about 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the left cubital foes red in colour. (4) A contusion of about 3 cm. x 3 cm. over the left side of the chest reddish brown in colour. (5) A contusion of about 3 cm. x 1 cm. over the left thigh reddish brown in colour. (6) A contusion of about 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the right thigh brown in colour. ( 19 ) THE above injuries reveal that knives and axes were not used when P. W-1 was attacked. Thus the evidence of P. W. 1 that the accused attacked him with knives and axes appears to be false and exaggerated version. As seen from the contents of Ex. P5 only four persons attacked P. W. 1. When 14 accused had beat P. W. 1 with iron rods and sticks and when it is alleged that A-5 and A-6 beat him indiscriminately in all probabilities P. W. 1 ought to have sustained much more number of injuries. According to P. W. 8, P. W. 1 sustained only one injury on his head. But, according to P. W. 1, A-1 dealt a blow with iron rod on his head, A-2 also beat him with iron rod on his right side of the head. According to P. W. 8, P. W. 1 sustained only one injury on his head. But, according to P. W. 1, A-1 dealt a blow with iron rod on his head, A-2 also beat him with iron rod on his right side of the head. Both the courts have held that the injury sustained by P. W. 1 on his head is caused by A-1. When a-1 and A-2 both of them are alleged to have beat P. W. 1 with iron rods on his head and when doctor found only one injury how the injury sustained by P. W. 1 on his head cannot be attributed to A-1 alone. The injury sustained by P. W. 1 on his head can be reasonably attributed to both the Accused/ a-1 and A-2. Thus it appears that attributing the injury on the head of P. W. 1 to A-1 alone and giving benefit of doubt to A-2 amounts to improper appreciation of evidence. The appellate Court has given benefit of doubt to a-5 and A-6. They were found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 148 of i. P. C. In view of the same, though in respect of A-3 and A-4 specific overt acts have been attributed with regard to the place of injury but in view of the evidence of P. W. 1 that a-5 and A-6 also beat him with sticks indiscriminately all over his body, attributing injuries only to A-3 and A-4 also appears to be not correct. If the prosecution case is believable and the evidence of witnesses is trust worthy the accused could be convicted with the aid of Section 34,148 of i. P. C. But when the prosecution case gives an impression that original version is suppressed and there was an attempt to implicate innocent persons or the incident did not occur as alleged by the prosecution, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Admittedly P. W. 1 had mentioned 13 names in F. I. R. and alleged that they were armed with axes and knives, their part of evidence is found to be false. According to Appellate court the prosecution made out a case against a-1, A-3 and A-4. Admittedly P. W. 1 had mentioned 13 names in F. I. R. and alleged that they were armed with axes and knives, their part of evidence is found to be false. According to Appellate court the prosecution made out a case against a-1, A-3 and A-4. Thus it is clear that there was an attempt to implicate some innocent person in this case when the possibility of implicating one or two innocent persons along with other accused who committed the offence cannot be ruled out. A great responsibility lies on the Courts to separate falsehood from truth Admittedly, both the courts have categorically held that the participation of other accused except A-1, a-3 and A-4 is not proved. When it appears that certain accused have been falsely implicated in a Criminal case and there appears to be no acceptable evidence or independent evidence to separate the chaff from the grain it may be just and reasonable to throw out the entire prosecution case rather than to convict some of the accused. Once, it is found that there was an attempt to falsely implicate the accused then what is the guarantee that some of the accused are not falsely implicated. Though it appears that PW. 1 was attacked and some persons caused injuries to him but when it is not possible to separate chaff from grain, all the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. In case between Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (2) AIR 1975 SC 1962 , the Apex Court held as follows: "doctrine of separation of grain from chaff does apply when grain is separablefrom chaff. When it is not separable because of the truth and the falsehood being so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court will have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details of prosecution case completely from the context, then the principle does not apply. " However grain of untruth, some exaggerations, embroideries or embellishment in prosecution case do not always warrant discarding the entire prosecution case. " However grain of untruth, some exaggerations, embroideries or embellishment in prosecution case do not always warrant discarding the entire prosecution case. ( 20 ) IN view of the above observations, I hold that the Courts below have failed to read the evidence correctly and when it appears that certain important points were not touched by the lower Courts, it amounts to misreading of evidence and when there is misreading of evidence leading to incorrect conclusions, the same results in miscarriage of Justice which occurred in this case and which require correction for the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned judgments are set aside and consequently the Revision is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the Accused/a-1, a-3 and A-4.