JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Joel Paul Antony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.A.No.12 of 2015 dated 12.03.2015 by confirming the order in S.T.C. No. 156 of 2013 dated 09.01.2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai. 3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that on 09.05.2013, when the complainant Karthikeyan was riding his tractor, the petitioners waylaid him and the petitioners 1 and 2 attacked P.W.1 with hands and wooden log and caused injuries. After enquiry, the trial Court has found that the petitioners' guilty and the trial Court convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred only) and in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The third petitioner is convicted under Section 341 of IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) and in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment. Against the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.12 of 215 dated 12.03.2015. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the trial Court. 4. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that A1 is the father of A2, A3 is the wife of A1. It is further stated that the occurrence was said to have been taken place on 09.05.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., the FIR was registered only on 10.05.2013 at about 11.30 p.m. The FIR reached the Court only on 13.05.2013 and the delay is not explained. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that since 11.05.2013 and 12.05.2013 were happened to be holidays, there is no delay in sending the FIR to the Court. On the side of the petitioners, It is stated that though Saturday and Sunday are holidays, the Court will be there and the reasons stated by the prosecution are unbelievable. 5. On the side of the petitioners, It is stated that though Saturday and Sunday are holidays, the Court will be there and the reasons stated by the prosecution are unbelievable. 5. On the side of the petitioners, it is further stated that P.W.1 has deposed that the complaint was given when he was undergoing treatment. Under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant has given a statement stating that “TAMIL” But in the Chief Examination of P.W.1, it is stated that P.W.1 went to police station and lodged a complaint. More over P.W.1 has deposed that “TAMIL”. It is further stated that there are two complaints and one of the complaint is suppressed. A perusal of the records reveals that P.W.1 has deposed that “TAMIL”. 6. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that as per the evidence of P.W.1, one Vellachamy was also injured in this case. But Vellachamy was not impleaded as witness and charge for the said offence was not included in the charge-sheet. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a statement before the Medical Officer that the place of occurrence is near Mettupatti Village. But in the observation Mahazer, it is stated that the place of occurrence is near Kankaniyar Kalam. In the chief examination P.W.1 has stated that he was riding the tractor near Kankaniyar Kalam. It is stated that there is counter case filed against the witness in this case. P.W.1 has deposed that there is a case registered in Crime No. 37 of 2013 under Sections 147 and 324 of IPC against P.W.1 and that one Shanmuganathan, Jeyaraman and Vellachamy on 09.05.2013 at about 01.30 p.m., had attacked the accused with logs and aruval and caused injuries. P.W.1 has further deposed that the case was taken on file and was numbered as C.C.No.339 of 2013, as an accused in that case. He is appearing before the Court and the case is still pending. P.W.1 also injured. In this case and the counter case ended in conviction. Instead of fixing the aggressor, the trial Court convicted both side accused. All the witnesses are relatives to P.Ws.1 and 2. Villagers are not examined. P.W.8 admitted that the place of occurrence is inserted in the complaint. P.W.8 has deposed that “TAMIL” P.W.4 is a hostile witness. P.Ws.1 to 3 are relatives and prayed to set aside the trial Courts Judgment. 7. All the witnesses are relatives to P.Ws.1 and 2. Villagers are not examined. P.W.8 admitted that the place of occurrence is inserted in the complaint. P.W.8 has deposed that “TAMIL” P.W.4 is a hostile witness. P.Ws.1 to 3 are relatives and prayed to set aside the trial Courts Judgment. 7. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that P.W.1 has explained the delay in the FIR and P.W.2 is not a relative and the evidence of eye witness can be relied upon. 8. On the side of the petitioners, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Paul Raj and Others v. State by the Inspector of Police reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 474, which reads as follows : ““Case and Counter? case - Procedure to be adopted - To register both cases, to conduct investigation and to file a positive charge-sheet upon on and referred charge-sheet in other - In appropriate circumstances, a charge-sheet may be filed in one and charge of exceeding right of private defence in other - Then only Court would be in position to appreciate who was aggressor in case and counter” 9. Records perused. It is clear that there is a delay in filing the complaint and sending the FIR to the Court. The explanation for delay given by the prosecution is not acceptable. The place of occurrence as per the evidence of P.W.1 and as stated in the Observation Mahazer and sketch, is not corroborated by the statement given in the FIR. The statement of P.W.1 regarding one Vellachamy who has also sustained injuries is not supported by the evidence of other witnesses. The petitioner has stated that he lodged a complaint before the respondent police and then he has changed the statement as if he lodged the complaint in the hospital. This contradiction was not explained by the prosecution. P.W.4 is a hostile witness. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that the counter case has been filed against all P.Ws. regarding the injury caused to the accused herein in the same occurrence. Instead of closing one of the FIR and finding out which of the complaint is really genuine, the police has filed two charge-sheets against both the parties and unfortunately both the case ended in conviction. regarding the injury caused to the accused herein in the same occurrence. Instead of closing one of the FIR and finding out which of the complaint is really genuine, the police has filed two charge-sheets against both the parties and unfortunately both the case ended in conviction. In the circumstances, the citation placed by the petitioner is squarely applicable to this case. 10. For this reasons, it is clear that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, this criminal revision case is allowed by setting aside the Judgment passed by the lower Court and the trial Court and the petitioners are acquitted from all the charges against them. They are entitled for refund of all the fine amount. The Registry is directed to send this order copy to all the concerned Courts immediately.