Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 23.06.2005 made in C.C.No.58 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District. 2. The history of the case are as follows:- The defacto complainant one Mr.Aanji S/o. Chinnaraji Gounder had levelled a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town Police Station, Vaniyambadi. On 01.12.2001, at around 3.00 p.m., one Mrs. Saraswathi wife of Shankar had used abusive and vulgar language towards the defacto complainant and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant. Therefore, the said Saraswathi induced her in-laws viz., Venkatesan, Muthu and Sekar stating that the defacto complainant had picked a quarrel with her. Therefore, all the three accused assembled at about 11.30 p.m., on the same day and attacked the defacto complainant with wooden logs. In the result, he had sustained injuries and was rushed to the Hospital. Knowing about the occurrence, the respondent police had rushed to the Hospital and collected statements from the injured defacto complainant, who underwent the treatment at the Hospital. 3. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted and a charge sheet was filed in Crime No.647 of 2001 for the alleged offence under Sections 294(B), 323, 325 IPC. 4. On the side of prosecution six witnesses were examined and six documents were marked, viz., statement of the complainant, wound certificate, observation Mahazar signature of P.W.5, F.I.R. and rough sketch and material evidence was marked viz., three wooden logs of length "2 2/1". On the side of the defence no witness, no document was marked. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is a painter by profession and he is known to all the accused persons. On 01.12.2001 at about 11.30 p.m., while he was returning from his work spot to his house, when at that time all the three accused who were hidden behind the shrubs and suddenly emerged and had beaten him. P.W.1 further stated that A-2 had beaten him with an iron road, while A-1 and A-3 had beaten him with wooden logs. After hearing the noise, his in-laws P.W.2, one Sasikala rushed to the spot and witnessed the said occurrence. Immediately, he was taken to the Hospital by his brother. 6. P.W.2-Sasikala, who was an eye-witness has spoken and given corroborative evidence with P.W.1. P.W.3, brother of P.W.1 has spoken about the occurrence. After hearing the noise, his in-laws P.W.2, one Sasikala rushed to the spot and witnessed the said occurrence. Immediately, he was taken to the Hospital by his brother. 6. P.W.2-Sasikala, who was an eye-witness has spoken and given corroborative evidence with P.W.1. P.W.3, brother of P.W.1 has spoken about the occurrence. P.W.4-doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Ranipet had adduced evidence stating that the accused had sustained swelling injuries on his thigh, right forearm, left forearm and also on the back of his shoulder. He was undergoing treatment as an inpatient, thereafter, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Vellore for further treatment. P.W.5-Kesavan, Police constable who had checked at the incident spot and seized three wooden logs under a Mahazar. P.W.6-Sub Inspector of Police had adduced evidence that he had received a message on 02.12.2001 at about 09.00 p.m., about the said occurrence. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital and collected a statement from the defacto complainant and registered a criminal case in Crime No.647 of 2001 for offence under Section 294(B), 323 IPC. Subsequently, all the accused were arrested and remanded into judicial custody. 7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence in his cross-examination that previously there was a criminal case against his brother and himself; that both were acquitted from the criminal case; that as per the prosecution case, the defacto complainant and the accused had sustained injuries. P.W.1 further deposed that he did not know the kind of weapons, the accused had used to beat him and he assumed that the accused had beaten him with an iron rod and he did not measure the size of the wooden logs. 8. P.W.5-the Police Constable had stated in his cross-examination that he had seized three wooden logs in the presence of mahazar witness. Again he stated in his cross-examination that the police had seized the wooden logs as per the instructions given by the brother of the defacto complainant. P.W.6 had stated that the occurrence took place near Mariamman temple, but as per complaint, the occurrence had happened near the defato complainant's residence. 9. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on perusing the F.I.R. and charge sheet and material evidence, was of the view that a controversy has arisen. The prosecution had not proved the case beyond doubt and therefore all the accused were acquitted from the criminal proceedings. 10. 9. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on perusing the F.I.R. and charge sheet and material evidence, was of the view that a controversy has arisen. The prosecution had not proved the case beyond doubt and therefore all the accused were acquitted from the criminal proceedings. 10. Not being satisfied with the findings of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, acquittal of all the accused in C.C.No.58 of 2002, dated 23.06.2005, the defacto complainant / P.W.1, has filed the above revision. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly concluded that there was an occurrence of P.W.1 being attacked on 01.12.2001 at about 11.30 p.m., but the learned Magistrate went wrong in disbelieving the version of the prosecution. The trial Court also wrongly holding that there are several discrepancies in the complaint and the deposition of P.W.1 and in the statements given in the Police Investigation and the doctor's evidence, wherein, it had been stated that the occurrence took place near the Mariamman temple. Further, the trial Court had erred that P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5. are interested witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 is an injured witness and he had undergone medical treatment at Ranipet Hospital and Vellore Hospital respectively. P.W.4-doctor who had adduced evidence that he had treated the injured person. 12. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution case was well established before the trial Court by the prosecution side. P.W.1 is the injured witness and also is the defacto complainant. In order to prove the wounds sustained by the defacto complainant, medical records were produced. The Investigation Officer had seized wooden logs under mahazar witness and also registered F.I.R. and sketch of the occurrence. P.W.2 is an eye witness of the said incident. All the accused persons are well known to P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution proved this case before the learned Magistrate through documentary evidence as well as eye witness. 13. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that P.W.1 initially stated that all the accused had beaten him with three wooden logs. During cross-examination, P.W.1, stated that A-2 Muthu had attached with iron rod, as such the inconsistent statement given by P.W.1, who is the prime witness in this case. The time of occurrence was 11.30 p.m., during pitch darkness. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that P.W.1 initially stated that all the accused had beaten him with three wooden logs. During cross-examination, P.W.1, stated that A-2 Muthu had attached with iron rod, as such the inconsistent statement given by P.W.1, who is the prime witness in this case. The time of occurrence was 11.30 p.m., during pitch darkness. As per prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 01.12.2001 at 11.30 p.m. P.W.6-Sub Inspector's statement that he had received information on 02.12.2001 at 9.00 p.m., as such there was a delay on the side of the prosecution. P.W.1 categorically admitted that there was a criminal case between the accused and himself. Learned counsel further submitted that both parties are living in the same location and also being relatives. Now, both parties are developing cordial relationship with each other, besides both parties involved in agricultural labour work. All the three accused had suffered the judicial custody for a period of three days. Besides all the accused were involved in agricultural operations and during the pendency of the case they had developed cordial relationships among themselves. 14. On considering the prosecution case and on the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for all the parties and on perusing the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the view:- P.W.1 is the injured witness, who underwent treatment at the Government Hospital Ranipet and the Government Hospital, Vellore and he had been treated by P.W.4-doctor, who is attached to the Government Hospital, Vaniyambadi. On the information of P.W.4, the Police Officer had rushed to the hospital and collected statements from the defacto complainant. Subsequently, the respondent/police had proceeded with the case and arrested all the accused persons and remanded them into judicial custody. The Police Officer stated in his evidence that he had seized three wooden logs. P.W.1 had stated that A2 was beaten with iron rods and that A1 and A3 had beaten him with iron rods. As such controversial statements have been made on the side of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, this revision cannot be allowed hence, this Court confirms the order of the trial Court and dismisses the revision. 15. Resultantly, the above Criminal Revision is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment dated 23.06.2005 made in C.C.No.58 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District is confirmed.