JUDGMENT G.D. Saxena, J. 1. The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 being aggrieved by a judgment dated 11th November, 2003 rendered in Cri. Appeal No. 59/2002 by acquitting the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded in Misc. Cri. Case No. 452/98 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karera, District Shivpuri, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 326/149 of IPC. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this revision are that on 20th October, 1996 in the morning at about 7 a.m., complainant-Malkhan Singh was going towards his field. By that time, his son Balveer after having milk was coming back. When Balveer reached in front of the house of Dilla, all accused armed with deadly weapons surrounded him and on previous enmity caused serious injuries on the person of Balveer. The report of the incident was lodged by the complainant on the basis of which crime was registered against the accused. The investigation was set in motion. The injured was medically examined. During examination, the injury sustained by the injured Balveer on his left leg, alleged to be caused by sharp edged dangerous weapon was found to be grave in nature. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. After trial, the Trial Magistrate convicted all the accused for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced them accordingly to one year's RI with a fine of Rs. 500-500, two years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000-1,000, and five years' RI with a fine of Rs. 2,000-2,000, respectively. 2. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in this case, the ocular evidence supported by the medical evidence has proved the fact beyond all doubts that accused being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object caused grave injuries by sharp edged weapons like axe, sword and farsa to the injured Balveer Singh as a result of which his leg was amputated, but even then the Appellate Court on the basis of minor contradictions/omissions in the ocular evidence, which in no way uprooted the case of prosecution, came to overturn the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate, which is against the recognized principles of law. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the petition, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in appeal may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration and passing the appropriate judgment in accordance with the law after appreciating the evidence on record. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused Nos. 2 to 6 supported the judgment of acquittal passed in appeal by the Appellate Court and opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He prayed that by affirming the same, the revision petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the Trial Court and the law applicable to the case. 5. No doubt, it is settled law that if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its judgment acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the same. We shall, therefore, examine the evidence and the material on record to see whether the conclusions recorded in acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 to 6/accused are reasonable and plausible or the same are vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below are such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously, which in other words may be characterised as perverse. 6. On perusal of the entire prosecution version and evidence as adduced before the Trial Judge, it is revealed that Malkhan Singh (P.W. 1), complainant/father of injured, Balveer Singh (P.W. 2), injured Narendra (P.W. 3), Jandel Singh (P.W. 7), brothers of injured Balveer Singh including another witness Bharat Singh (P.W. 9) were introduced as eye-witnesses by the prosecution and they were so examined before the Trial Court. 7. Makhan Singh (P.W. 1) deposed that two years ago at about 7 a.m., in the morning, he was proceeding to the field when he saw his son Balveer coming from the well having milk and when his son reached near the house of Asharam, accused Shadab prevented his way while other accused persons armed with deadly weapons started beating his son. It is alleged that accused Amar Singh and Pahalwan Singh caused injuries by axe and farsa on the head of injured; accused Lal Singh dealt him with a spear causing injury on the forehead and accused Mohar Singh inflicted him injury by means of a sword on the neck and leg. By that time, his son Narendra reached on the spot, who intervened in the incident. After incident, the injured was shifted in a tractor to the Police Station, Karera, where the complainant-Malkhan Singh lodged the report. The police sent the injured for treatment to the hospital at Karera. After examination, on referral, the injured was shifted to the District Hospital, Shivpuri, wherefrom for further treatment he was shifted to the hospital at Gwalior. This witness in his deposition did not name other accused, namely, Hakim Singh having sword and Rajesh having a stick. So, he was declared hostile for limited purpose. 8. Balveer (P.W. 2), who is son of Malkhan Singh and the injured in this case, deposed that on 20th October, 1996 at about 7 a.m., he was returning home having milk from his field. When he reached near house of Asharam, accused Shadab restrained him and asked as to from where he was coming. By that time accused Babu Singh, Nawab Singh, Amar Singh, Lal Singh, Pahalwan Singh and Mohar Singh reached on the spot having armed with axe, sword, spear and sticks and they surrounded him. At first, accused Babu Singh caught hold of him and then accused Amar Singh inflicted an injury to him by farsa on his head. Accused Lal Singh caused injuries twice by spear on the head and face. Accused Mohar Singh caused injury by a sword on the left leg. It is alleged that accused Mohar Singh also inflicted twice blows with a sword causing injuries on the chest and left wrist. At the time of incident, his father and brother Narendra came on the spot and they intervened in the matter. Another person Balveer alias Balwan was also present on the spot who witnessed the incident. In his evidence, the injured also did not name other accused Hakim Singh and Rajesh. So, he was declared hostile for limited purpose. 9. Narendra (P.W. 3), son of the complainant and Balveer Singh (P.W. 4) son of Raghuveer Singh also narrated the same incident. Another person Balveer alias Balwan was also present on the spot who witnessed the incident. In his evidence, the injured also did not name other accused Hakim Singh and Rajesh. So, he was declared hostile for limited purpose. 9. Narendra (P.W. 3), son of the complainant and Balveer Singh (P.W. 4) son of Raghuveer Singh also narrated the same incident. Narendra (P.W. 3), brother of injured stated that at the time of incident he was near the compound of the school when he heard shouts of crying. He immediately rushed to the spot and saw accused Amar Singh with an axe, Lal Singh with a spear, Mohar Singh with a sword, Pahalwan Singh with a farsa and Babu Singh and Nawab Singh with sticks causing injuries on the body of his brother Balveer Singh. He stated that due to causing of injuries to his brother, two teeth of upper jaw were broken and left leg was separated. He also saw injuries on his head and chest. Thereafter, his father reached on the spot. He stated that accused Lal Singh caused injuries on hands and legs by means of spear and accused Amar Singh cut the leg of the injured by sword. This witness in his deposition did not name other accused Hakim Singh and Rajesh, who were alleged to have been present with sword and sticks at the time of incident. So, he was declared hostile for limited purpose. Jandel Singh (P.W. 7) and Bharat Singh (P.W. 9) in their Court statements, however, with certain contradictions and omissions with other ocular witnesses as mentioned above supported the prosecution version to some extent. 10. Thus, all prosecution witnesses to the incident including injured and his father, i.e., the complainant admitted in their cross-examination that prior to the incident, there was formed an enmity between the complainant party and the accused named above. 11. Dr. D.C. Shrivastava (P.W. 5), who examined the injured at first time after incident in the Primary Health Centre, Karera, deposed that on 20th October, 1996, he examined injured Balbeer Singh, who was brought by Jagdish Narayan, Head Constable No. 770 of Karera Police Station and during examination he found following injuries on the person of injured:-- (i) Lacerated wound of size 5 cm. x 2 cm. x skin deep on forehead mid horizontally; (ii) Lacerated wound on upper lip on mid area of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. x skin deep on forehead mid horizontally; (ii) Lacerated wound on upper lip on mid area of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm.; (iii) Lacerated wound of size 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on left leg in lower 1/3rd part, fracture of bone was seen from wound. Oozing of blood was also seen. For this injury, X-ray examination was suggested; (iv) Abrasion of size 8 cm. x 2 cm. on left shoulder externally. 12. As per opinion of the doctor, the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt blunt. (v) Two incised wounds each of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on front of chest on sternal region parallel to each other at a distance of 1 cm.; (vi) Incised wound of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on frontal area of scalp obliquely; (vii) An incised wound of size 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm on left cheek obliquely; (viii) An incised wound of size 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on occipital area of scalp. 13. The above injury Nos. (v) to (viii) were caused by sharp cutting weapon-All above injurers were caused within 24 hours. Nature of all injuries were to be determined after X-ray examination. The said injury report (Exh. P-2) is written and signed by him. 14. Dr. C.M. Tripathi (P.W. 11) posted in the District Hospital, Shivpuri deposed that on 30th October, 1996, he examined the X-ray plates of injured and opined that there was a fracture in tibia and fibula bone and left leg of the injured was amputated below knee. Fracture in 1st, 2nd metacarpal bone of left hand was also seen. The report (Exh. P-4) is written and signed by him. 15. Dr. A.L. Sharma (P.W. 10) stated that while he was posted in the District Hospital, Shivpuri on 26th October, 1996, he and Dr. S.P. Gupta and Dr. S.K. Kumara operated the left leg of injured Balbeer and due to its having being infected by bacteria, from the knee the leg was amputated. 16. In this case, the Investigating Officer was not examined before the Trial Magistrate. 17. Now, on examining the FIR (Exh. S.P. Gupta and Dr. S.K. Kumara operated the left leg of injured Balbeer and due to its having being infected by bacteria, from the knee the leg was amputated. 16. In this case, the Investigating Officer was not examined before the Trial Magistrate. 17. Now, on examining the FIR (Exh. P-1) lodged by Malkhan Singh (P.W. 1), father of deceased just after two hours of the incident in Police Station, Kerara, we find that the complainant did not mention the name of accused Shadab despite being the fact that it was he who restrained his son Balveer while proceeding back to his residence and then other accused started beating his son, but due to aforesaid, no crime against accused Shadab was registered on the date of incident. The name of accused Shadab was discovered and incorporated during investigation of the crime. On going through the statements of all ocular witnesses discussed above, it appears that accused Shadab restrained the injured Balveer and thereafter, other accused assaulted the injured and caused injuries by means of sword and other lethal weapons. Further, the eye-witnesses's account including complainant-Malkhan Singh (P.W. 1) and injured Balveer Singh (P.W. 3), on the other hand, goes to suggest that they have exonerated the accused Rajesh, who was having sword and alleged to have caused injuries on the chest of injured Balveer Singh (P.W. 3) and another accused Hakim Singh, who was having wooden stick with which he assaulted the injured. 18. Another discrepancy noticed in the ocular evidence is that accused Amar Singh caused injury on the head of injured by means of an axe; accused Lal Singh caused injury by spear (Barchhi) on the head of injured; accused Mohar Singh caused injury by sword on the neck and left leg of the injured whereas as per medical evidence of Dr. D.C. Shrivastava (P.W. 5), who examined the injured at first time after incident in the Primary Health Centre, Karera, it appears that he found lacerated wounds on forehead mid horizontally, on upper lip on mid area and on left leg in lower 1/3rd part with fractured bone. For these injuries X-ray examination was suggested. These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. During further treatment in the District Hospital, Shivpuri, on 26th October, 2006, Dr. For these injuries X-ray examination was suggested. These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. During further treatment in the District Hospital, Shivpuri, on 26th October, 2006, Dr. A.L. Sharma (P.W. 10) conducted the operation of lower part of left leg of the injured and thereafter, on 30th October, 1996, Dr. C.M. Tripathi examined the injured and as per X-ray plates of left leg, he opined that there was complete fracture of left tibia and fibula bones with traumatic amputation. So, the injury caused on left leg by means of sword, which is attributed to accused Mohar Singh is not supported by the evidence of Dr. D.C. Shrivastava (P.W. 5) and Dr. C.M. Tripati (P.W. 11). So, the medical evidence on record does not corroborate the injuries attributed to the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6, herein. Hence, the learned Additional Judge came to the conclusion that having appreciated the evidence as a whole of the prosecution case, there was no iota of evidence against the accused/respondents to connect them with the alleged crime. 19. In Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2719 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:-- To find out intrinsic worth of these witnesses, it is appropriate to test their trustworthiness and credibility in light of the collateral and surrounding circumstances as well as the probabilities and in conjunction with all other facts brought out on record. There cannot be a rule of universal application that if the eye-witnesses to the incident are interested in prosecution case and/or are disposed inimically towards the accused persons, there should be corroboration to their evidence. The evidence of eye-witnesses, irrespective of their interestedness, kinship, standing or enmity with the accused, if found credible and of such a caliber as to be regarded as wholly reliable could be sufficient and enough to bring home the guilt of the accused. But, it is reality in life, albeit unfortunate and sad, that human failing tends to exaggerate, over-implicate and distort the true version against the person/s with whom there is rivalry, hostility and enmity. Cases are not unknown where entire family is roped in due to enmity and simmering feelings although one or only few members of that family may be involved in the crime. Cases are not unknown where entire family is roped in due to enmity and simmering feelings although one or only few members of that family may be involved in the crime. In the circumstances of the present case, to obviate any chance of false implication due to enmity of the complainant party with the accused party and the interestedness of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 in the prosecution case, it is prudent to look for corroboration of their evidence by medical/ballistic evidence and seek adequate assurance from the collateral and surrounding circumstances before acting on their testimony. The lack of corroboration from medical and ballistic evidence and the circumstances brought out on record may ultimately persuade that in fact their evidence cannot be safely acted upon. 20. In Pudhu Raja v. State, (2012) 11 SCC 196 , at page 201 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:-- 14. The law on the issue of interference with an order of acquittal is to the effect that only in exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal, The Appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the Trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 21. It is settled principle of law that a Court of revision should not interfere with the judgment of Subordinate Court or the findings arrived at, unless there is gross violation of the procedure of perversity in reasoning resulting in miscarriage or total failure of justice. The revisional powers can be exercised only if there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice in the sense that the findings are against evidence and facts, but where the acquittal is recorded after due appreciation of the evidence on record, interference by the Revisional Court is not warranted. 22. As stated above and as discussed above, there is no evidence at all against the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to connect them with the alleged crime for the charges levelled against them. So, the view taken by the Appellate Court is reasonable, plausible and possible view from the evidence recorded. 22. As stated above and as discussed above, there is no evidence at all against the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to connect them with the alleged crime for the charges levelled against them. So, the view taken by the Appellate Court is reasonable, plausible and possible view from the evidence recorded. The judgment and order impugned in the revision therefore does not require any interference. Resultantly, the revision fails and stands hereby dismissed.