Judgment D.H. Waghela, J.—Out of the two petitioners, Petitioner No. 1 – Jethabhai Virsangbhai Patel is stated to have passed away on 17.9.2008 as per the copy of his death certificate produced by learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Panchal. Therefore, the present revision application does not survive as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. 2. As for Petitioner No. 2, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Panchal that the judgment and order dated 29.1.2000 of learned Second Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 6/1999 was perverse and illegal in so far as neither attempt to commit murder of the victim was proved nor was any motive established for commission of any crime by the appellants upon the original victim. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 18.8.1999 when the original complainant, namely Takhaji, was walking on a public road, the applicant herein had asked him to take a lift in his Jeep and thereafter he was made to drink country-liquor by force. Thereafter, the appellants had tried to extort the sum of Rs. 5000/- from Takhaji. As the complainant could not pay such amount, he was thrown into an empty well from where he was rescued on the next day with injuries including fracture on his ribs. He was hospitalised for eight days. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Panchal relied upon deposition of the complainant himself to submit that an unbelievable story was recited by the complainant in so far as the applicants could not have invited the complainant, who was a labourer, to take lift and then made him to drink country liquor. It was even more unbelievable that the applicants would demand Rs. 5000/- from a labourer after he was forcibly intoxicated. It was, on that basis, further submitted that the applicants had no reason whatsoever to enter into any altercation with the victim and to throw him into the well, as stated in the complaint. It was pointed out from the deposition of the other witnesses, namely, Bhupatsing Bhikhaji Rathod (PW-4 Exh. 19) and Nathaji Ganeshji Thakor (PW-5 Exh. 20) that, even after being rescued from the well, the complainant had not clearly named the applicants as the persons who could have thrown him into the well. Thus, in short, the offence under section 307 of IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, according to the submissions. 19) and Nathaji Ganeshji Thakor (PW-5 Exh. 20) that, even after being rescued from the well, the complainant had not clearly named the applicants as the persons who could have thrown him into the well. Thus, in short, the offence under section 307 of IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, according to the submissions. It was further pointed out from the record that the parties had made an application before learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2000, wherein it was stated that the original complainant and the applicants had amicably settled their dispute, that they had no grudge against each other and had established good relations filled with love and warmth. However, learned Sessions Judge had rejected that application Exh. 22 on the basis that the applicants having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, it could not be compounded under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. As against the above facts and record of the case, learned APP submitted that injuries on the body of the victim were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the applicants and the victim were admittedly together at the time of incident. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the original complainant and the impugned judgment and order is required to be upheld and confirmed. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances briefly narrated hereinabove and having regard to complete lack of motive for committing such serious offence on the part of the applicants as also improbability of the applicants attempt at extorting money from a labourer and going to the extent of attempting to kill him for his failure to pay, the alleged offence could not be believed to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The victim was admittedly intoxicated at the time of the offence and his version is suffering from inherent improbability even as no details of how and by whom was he thrown in the well were coming out from his deposition. The contradictions brought on record in the deposition of other witnesses further weakened the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, mere fact of injuries on the body of the victim could not be relied upon to bring home the serious charge of attempt to commit murder. 7. The contradictions brought on record in the deposition of other witnesses further weakened the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, mere fact of injuries on the body of the victim could not be relied upon to bring home the serious charge of attempt to commit murder. 7. Therefore, upon perusal of the evidence on record, it appears to be necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice that the remaining applicant is given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the present revision application is allowed, as far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the impugned judgments and orders dated 29.1.2000 and 20.10.2005 are set aside and the Petitioner No. 2 is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Bail bond of Petitioner No. 2 are cancelled. P P P P P