Judgment 1. The Criminal Revision is filed by the accused 1 to 3 against their conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 326 and 341 IPC insofar as A1 is concerned, and 324 IPC insofar as A2 and A3 are concerned. 2. The date, time and place of the occurrence is at 11 p.m. on 05.11.2010 near SAT Complex, Gurusamy Pillai Street, Villupuram. The charges levelled against the accused are that the accused 1 to 3 armed with iron rods in their hands and in drunken mode started abusing the passers by in Gurusamy Pillai Street in filthy words and threatened them and when they waylaid, the de facto complainant who warned the accused that he will give police complaint, but they started abusing the de facto complainant in filthy words and assaulted him by using iron rods. In the course of which, the de facto complainant sustained bone fracture on his left wrist and left leg and also other grievous injuries on his back, thereby the accused committed the acts constituting the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC. The accused persons faced trial for the offences. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PW.1 to PW.11 and produced Exs.P1 to P10 besides M.O.1 to M.O.3 iron rods as material objects. The trial Court, on the basis of the available evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 324 IPC and sentenced them for the same, but found them not guilty of the offences under Section 307 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the accused have preferred C.A.No.36 of 2012. The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, has on the basis of the same evidence, found A1 guilty of the offences under Sections 326 and 341 IPC and A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision is filed before this Court. 3. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would, by relying on the following material factors, contend that the case is falsely foisted against the accused 1 to 3:- (i) the delay in getting admitted in the hospital and in lodging the complaint; (ii) the admission made by PW.1 regarding non-identity of the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would, by relying on the following material factors, contend that the case is falsely foisted against the accused 1 to 3:- (i) the delay in getting admitted in the hospital and in lodging the complaint; (ii) the admission made by PW.1 regarding non-identity of the accused. (iii) the failure of the prosecution to furnish particulars regarding the source of information and regarding the identity of the accused. (iv) the inconsistency in the statement made by PW.1 before Doctor about the identity of the accused and the type of the weapon used for assaulting him. (v) the inconsistency and the contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 regarding the manner in which, PW.1 was assaulted and the events that followed. 5. Regarding delay, the facts remained undisputed are that the occurrence taken place at 11 p.m on 05.11.2010, whereas the injured was immediately after the occurrence went back to his house and he was admitted in the hospital on 06.11.2010 and the complaint was lodged only on 08.11.2010. Though PW.1 is allegedly assaulted by the accused with iron rods and allegedly sustained bone fractures in left wrist and left leg and other serious injuries on the back, he was not immediately taken to the hospital that too nearby hospital. PW.1 admittedly passed through a private hospital to reach his house from the scene of occurrence and when the injuries were serious in nature neither PW.1 nor PW.2, who is said to have accompanied him to his house, chose to go to the private hospital to atleast take first aid for the injuries sustained by PW.1. PW.1 was first stated to be admitted in the hospital on 06.11.2010, but it is not explained as to why no intimation was received by the police from the hospital regarding the occurrence and the hospitalisation of the victim of the occurrence. The evidence of PW.10 – Sub Inspector of Police, would reveal that the complaint was recorded by Special Sub Inspector of Police only at 10 p.m. on 08.11.2010, whereas the investigation was commenced by PW.10 only at 8.30 a.m. on 09.11.2010. Thus, the delay as explained above in the present case assumes greater significance in ascertaining the truth of the prosecution version regarding the manner of the occurrence and the identity of the actual offenders. 6. Thus, the delay as explained above in the present case assumes greater significance in ascertaining the truth of the prosecution version regarding the manner of the occurrence and the identity of the actual offenders. 6. PW.1 has, in the course of his cross examination, categorically admitted that till the date of occurrence he was not acquainted with either of the accused and he was not aware of their identity or their names, whereas he has, both in his complaint as well as in his Section 161 statement, disclosed and furnished the particulars and the identity of the accused and their names. It is nobody's case that PW.1 was furnished with the particulars by either of PW.2 to PW.4. Neither PW.2 nor PW.3 and PW.4 would also furnish the source of information, through which PW.1 came to know the identity of the accused and their names. This material aspect, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, goes to the root of the prosecution case in respect of the actual participation of the accused in the commission of offence. In this context, only the evidence of PW.9 Dr. Suresh, who treated PW.1 on 06.11.2010 is to be appreciated. PW.9 would categorically say that he was informed by the injured as if he was assaulted by three unknown persons that too by using sticks. It was not disclosed to the Doctor that he was assaulted by known persons with iron rods as narrated by the prosecution. 7. Another aspect which deserves some consideration herein is the inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 as to whether either of them accompanied PW.1 either on the date when the occurrence taken place or the next day etc. PW.9 Doctor also has, in the course of his cross examination, clearly stated that there is no marks of iron rod in the place of injuries, which would go to doubt the case of the prosecution regarding the type of weapon used for the act of assault. 8. PW.9 Doctor also has, in the course of his cross examination, clearly stated that there is no marks of iron rod in the place of injuries, which would go to doubt the case of the prosecution regarding the type of weapon used for the act of assault. 8. The reading of evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 would amply demonstrate that they do not corroborate each other regarding the manner of occurrence, regarding the number of times PW.1 was assaulted by either of the accused and what transpired prior to the act of assault between PW.1 and the accused and as to whether both PW.2 and PW.3 accompanied PW.1 to the hospital as well as police station on the next day for admitting him in the hospital and for giving the police complaint. The inconsistency is material enough to doubt the veracity of the prosecution evidence in this regard. 9. Further PW.1 to PW.3 do not corroborate each other as to how PW.1 was assaulted, whether he was assaulted once or twice by either of the accused. PW.10 – Investigating Officer has categorically pointed out the inconsistency in this regard in section 161 statements of PW.1 to PW.3 and their statements made in the witness box before the Court. The contradictions in two statements would, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, compel this Court not to attach any importance to the oral statement of the witnesses. The combined appreciation of the material factors discussed above would raise a very serious doubt regarding the involvement of the accused, as such the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. But both the courts below failed to consider the same in proper perspective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice and conviction of all the accused. In my considered view, the finding of conviction of the accused by the courts below deserves serious interference. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision stands allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2012 made in C.A.No.36 of 2012 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the petitioners 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 are acquitted from the charges. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision stands allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2012 made in C.A.No.36 of 2012 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the petitioners 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 are acquitted from the charges. The petitioners shall be released forthwith unless their detention is required in connection with any other case and the bail bond, if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.