Judgment :- 1. The present Revision has been filed by the petitioner who is the injured in this case. This Petition has arisen against the order of acquittal in judgment dated 11.3.2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: On 3.10.2002 at about 15.00 hours when P.W.2/petitioner was in her house, the accused due to enmity assembled before the house and the first accused attacked her with an iron pipe in his hand and the second accused attacked her with a wooden thadi in his hand and the third accused attacked with his hands and legs in which P.W.2 sustained injuries. P.W.1, the son of P.W.2 gave a Complaint and a case was registered for offence under Sections 323, 324 and 32, I.P.C. After due trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and further submitted that, P.W.3, who is the eye witness to the occurrence and husband of P.W.2 was treated hostile. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the person examined as P.W.3 is not the person mentioned in the list of witnesses by the prosecution. The learned counsel has no materials to substantiate the same and also there is no materials available in the Court. Further, the petitioner has not raised the point before the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that the said point cannot be raised at this stage. 4. Further in a case of Revision against acquittal, when the Trial Court decided the issue on the basis of the available evidence deposed in the Court, when two views are possible and one view which is in favour of the accused is taken into account, and the benefit is given to the accused, this Court has no power to interfere with the finding of the Lower Court, unless otherwise it is brought to the notice of the Court that the judgment and order by the Lower Court is apparently illegal or perverse in nature. 5. On a perusal of the evidence and judgment, this Court is of the view, that there is nothing to suggest, to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the Revision Petition fails. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. 5. On a perusal of the evidence and judgment, this Court is of the view, that there is nothing to suggest, to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the Revision Petition fails. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. The Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) towards fees to Mr. N. Duraiswamy as the Amicus Curiae.