JUDGMENT :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The defacto complainant / P.W.2 had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam, Villupuram District, stating that on 07.06.2003 at about 08.30 p.m. while he was proceeding on his TVS-50 motorcycle on the Royadupakkam Road, the accused 1 to 5 had intercepted him and attacked him with deadly weapons jointly and hence, the Inspector of Police had registered a criminal case in Crime No.259 of 2003, against the accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 of IPC and against the fifth accused for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 506(ii)) of IPC. The Inspector of Police had conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The said case has been referred to the Sessions Court, wherein the case has been numbered as S.C.No.66 of 2007. 2. The prosecution has listed nine witnesses and annexed seven documents and no material evidence was marked. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and four documents were marked. After rceipt of the charge sheet, all the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, the case was proceeded with. 3. P.W.1, Purushothaman had adduced evidence that his brother Natarajan was married to A-5 i.e., Sheela Devi around 15 years ago, but the spouses had not lived together. The other accused are blood brothers of A-5. He further adduced evidence that A-5 and P.W.1 quarreled frequently. On 07.06.2003, at about 08.30 p.m., he had been informed by one Sekar, Supervisor that he had admitted his brother at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry as he had sustained cut injuries. He deposed that he had rushed to the hospital, wherein he was told by P.W.2 that his wife and his brothers have inflicted cut injuries on him by use of sharp edged weapons and hence, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint to the police station. 4. P.W.2 had adduced evidence that he was working at Aurovil as a parcel officer. On 24.01.1992, he had married A-5 and she gave birth to one male and one female child. They quarreled frequently amongst themselves after the marriage. A-5 has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Pondicherry. As per the Family Court proceedings, he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. On 24.01.1992, he had married A-5 and she gave birth to one male and one female child. They quarreled frequently amongst themselves after the marriage. A-5 has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Pondicherry. As per the Family Court proceedings, he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. Thereafter, A-5 had demanded a share from his landed property and due to this, she picked quarrels with him frequently. On 07.06.2003, he had collected a sum of Rs.53,000/- from one Damodaran Pillai of Royadupakkam Village and while he was proceeding on his TVS-50 towards Pondicherry and on nearing the place of Santhikulam, all the accused intercepted him and assaulted him with aruval, hammer and sticks. A-1 Chakravarthy had inflicted injuries on him on his head and behind his shoulder. A-2, Manohar had inflicted injuries on him on his shoulder. A-3, Amudhu had inflicted injuries on him on his head, A-4, Kabilan had inflicted injuries on him behind his head and A-5 assaulted him with a stick on his left hand joint and she had instructed her brothers to pour kerosene and set fire to him and hand over the kerosene can. At that time, a motorcyclist, who was proceeding on the same road, noticed the incident and admitted him in the hospital. He had been hospitalized from 07.06.2003 to 21.06.2003. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at Miot Hospital on 26.06.2003 to 02.07.2003. His brother P.W.1 had lodged a complaint regarding the incident on 08.06.2003 at Kottakuppam Police Station. 5. P.W.3, Sekar had adduced evidence that he did not know about the said occurrence and he had not admitted P.W.1 at the hospital and turned hostile. P.W.4. had adduced evidence that A-2 and A-5 are the spouses. He further deposed that the police had conducted an enquiry at the occurrence place and he had signed in the observation mahazar. A5 also signed the same mahazar. P.W.6, a medical officer had adduced evidence that he had examined P.W.2 and certified that P.W.2 had sustained deep cut injuries on his forehead of size measuring 12 x 5 cms and sustained cut injuries measuring an extent of 5 cms on the back of his right ear and a scar injury on his right neck measuring an extent of 7 x 1 x 2 cms and a cut injury extending from the front of his right ear upto his nose. The doctor further adduced evidence that the cheek above the P.W.2's right jaw was cut and blood vessels and muscles was inflicted with cut injury and that scars was visible. He further deposed that another scar was visible on his right cheek and muscles as they were damaged and also noticed other small injuries on his left hand joint, left shoulder. He deposed that P.W.2 was admitted on 07.06.2003 and was discharged on 21.06.2003. 6. P.W.8, Inspectorhad adduced evidence that he had received a complaint from P.W.1 and registered the same in crime No.259 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 506 (ii) IPC. He had further adduced evidence that on 09.06.2003, at around 7 a.m., he had conducted spot enquiry and prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch. P.W.9, the Inspector of Police had conducted investigation. He deposed that he had received wound certificate of P.W.2 from the hospital. After he came to know that there was previous enmity between them, he had filed a report before the Vanoor Judicial Magistrate Court to modify the Section, for offence committed, to one under 307 of IPC. 7. After considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by both sides and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned judge had acquitted all the accused since the prosecution case had not been proved beyond doubt. The learned judge observed that P.W.3 had turned hostile and that initially he had witnessed the occurrence and he had admitted P.W.2 to the hospital, but subsequently, he denied that he had seen the occurrence and he had not admitted the victim in the hospital. Further, the investigation officer had not conducted a proper enquiry against the accused. Further, no kerosene can had been recovered from the place of occurrence. Further, the fifth accused had been included in the prosecution case since there was previous enmity between A-5 and P.W.1. Therefore, the learned judge acquitted all the accused from the criminal case. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, P.W.2 had filed the above revision. 9. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner argued that P.W.2 is the injured witness and the accused are his wife and brother-in-laws and that they assaulted him with deadly weapons. Therefore, the learned judge acquitted all the accused from the criminal case. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, P.W.2 had filed the above revision. 9. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner argued that P.W.2 is the injured witness and the accused are his wife and brother-in-laws and that they assaulted him with deadly weapons. The doctor who was examined as P.W.6 had revealed the nature of injuries which had been caused by the accused. Though, P.W.3 had turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1's evidence is more concrete in order to punish the accused.All the accused had noted about P.W.2's movement and intercepted him on the way and assaulted him with deadly weapons due to previous enmity since there was a family dispute between P.W.2 and A.5. In order to prove the same, a copy of the maintenance case has been marked. Therefore, the prosecution had proved the case against the accused. The learned judge had failed to appreciate the victim's evidence and the doctor's evidence. 10. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that P.W.2 was unconscious and he did not know who took him to hospital and admitted him at the hospital, but after coming into conscious condition, P.W.2 stated that one Sekar had admitted him into the hospital, but P.W.3 had turned hostile and disagreed with the earlier statement and therefore, there is no eye-witness in the prosecution case. As per the prosecution case, the accused has used knife, hammer, stick and kerosene can which are the material objects of the prosecution case but the same had not been recovered and produced before the trial Court and as such, the entire prosecution case has become weakened. In order to prove the cut injuries which had been sustained by P.W.2 due to attack made by the accused with deadly weapons, the prosecution must produce the material objects, which they have not and as such, there is serious lacuna in the prosecution case. Further, A-5 had initiated maintenance case against P.W.2 and therefore, due to difference of opinion between the spouses, the false case had been foisted against the accused. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the revision. 11. The very competent counsel for the State contended that P.W.2, who was the injured witness, had disclosed the entire occurrence in his evidence. P.W.2 and all the accused are his brother-in-laws and wife. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the revision. 11. The very competent counsel for the State contended that P.W.2, who was the injured witness, had disclosed the entire occurrence in his evidence. P.W.2 and all the accused are his brother-in-laws and wife. Due to previous enmity, all the accused unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and intercepted him on the public road and assaulted him. Therefore, P.W.2 had clearly stated the involvement of the accused. P.W.3, who took P.W.2 to the hospital for immediate medical treatment had narrated the occurrence and signed in the statement at the time of the investigation, but had subsequently turned hostile. Even so, the prosecution case has not lost its strength, as there is a prima facie case on the side of the prosecution. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the judgment of the trial Court, this Court does not find any lapse for acquitting the accused. This Court is of the further view that P.W.3, Sekar who was alleged to be the direct eye-witness and who was alleged to have taken P.W.2 to the hospital and admitted him at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry, had openly stated before the trial Court that he did not know the occurrence and he had not admitted P.W.2/victim to the hospital. As such, the prosecution case has lost its strength. The allegation that the victim P.W.2 after regaining consciousness had come to know that P.W.3 had taken him to the hospital has also not been backed by any reliable evidence. This Court is of the further view that the prosecution had not produced any material evidence which is required in the instant case since the main allegation against all the accused is that the victim had been beaten with knife, hammer and stick. Therefore, in the absence of material evidence, the prosecution case further loses its strength. Hence, the acquittal proceedings is maintainable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision. 13. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment in S.C.No.66 of 2007, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Tindivanam, dated 09.08.2007 is confirmed.