ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the petitioners, who are the Accused Nos.1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur and who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004, before the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, challenging the judgment in the said Criminal Appeal, dated 08.02.2006, whereunder the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole, allowed the appeal in part exonerating the petitioners for the offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and confirmed the sentence imposed against them by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, dated 13.10.2004, as regards the punishment under Section 324 of I.P.C. 2. The petitioners faced trial in S.C.No.10 of 2002 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, on various charges and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, found them guilty of the charges under Sections 148 and 324 of I.P.C. and accordingly, after questioning them, convicted and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the charge under Section 148 of I.P.C. and further sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default simple imprisonment for one month each for the charge under Section 324 of I.P.C. 3. The parties to this Criminal Revision case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the State, represented by the Station House Officer, Pedda Araveedu Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.23 of 2001 of Pedda Araveedu Police Station, under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) r/w 149 of I.P.C., alleging that A.1 to A.13 and L.Ws.1 to 15 are residents of Ramayapalem Village of Pedda Araveedu Mandal. A.1 to A.13 belonged to Vaddera caste. The above prosecution witnesses except L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Reddy caste. L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Rajaka caste. 5. There are two rival groups in the village at Ramayapalem. L.Ws.1 to 15 and some others belonged to other group. There was a political rift in the village. Both the groups belonged to two political parties i.e., Telugudesam Party and Congress Party. L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Rajaka caste. 5. There are two rival groups in the village at Ramayapalem. L.Ws.1 to 15 and some others belonged to other group. There was a political rift in the village. Both the groups belonged to two political parties i.e., Telugudesam Party and Congress Party. There are strained feelings among the two groups since 1995 due to Panchayat elections. Apart from this, during September, 1995, the rival group belonging to accused brutally killed the father of L.W.1. So, there are strained feelings among the groups which reached climax. Both the accused party and the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) party laid their claim over Government banjar land in an extent of Ac.3-70 cents in Survey No.670, for which both the parties were not granted with any pattas. Accused group are waiting an opportunity to take revenge against the defacto-complainant. They hatched a plan to do away L.W.1, if he raise any objection over the occupation of the said land. Accused party collected material with stones and constructed parapet wall with stones encroaching the bore pump and public road and caused obstruction to the public. L.W.1 on hearing the same, raised objection. 6. While so, on 04.04.2001 at 5-00 P.M. L.Ws.2 to 5 went to bore to bring water and they found the encroachments. Then, A.1 to A.13 formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with spears, sticks and stones and attacked them. A.1 pierced L.W.2 with a spear on his head and caused bleeding injury. A.7 beat L.W.2 with stick on his left waist and caused bleeding injury. A.1 beat L.W.4 with a stone below right eye and caused bleeding injury. A.8 beat L.W.5 with a stone on the back side of her head and caused bleeding injury. A.2 pierced L.W.3 with a spear on his umbilical card and caused bleeding injury. They also beat L.Ws.2 to 5 with legs and hands. L.Ws.14 to 16 intervened and admonished accused. Then the accused found that L.W.1-Botchu Veera Reddy was not among L.Ws.2 to 5 and they learnt that he is proceeding to his land. Then the accused left hurriedly to kill him. Then L.Ws.8 to 10, who noticed the accused coming to kill L.W.1, gave signal to L.W.1 intimating that accused are coming to murder him. L.W.1 escaped and ran away. But, all the accused attacked L.W.1 armed with spears, sticks and surrounded him to kill him. Then the accused left hurriedly to kill him. Then L.Ws.8 to 10, who noticed the accused coming to kill L.W.1, gave signal to L.W.1 intimating that accused are coming to murder him. L.W.1 escaped and ran away. But, all the accused attacked L.W.1 armed with spears, sticks and surrounded him to kill him. Out of them, A.1 pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his left side stomach. A.2 beat L.W.1 with stick on his face and chin indiscriminately. A.13 pierced L.W.1 with spear on his right hand wrist. A.12 pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his chest. A.10 beat L.W.1 with a stick on his back. The rest of the accused beat L.W.1 with sticks indiscriminately. Accused left the place presuming that L.W.1 was died. L.W.2 and some others took the L.W.1 on a cart to his house. Later, he was taken to Government hospital. L.W.1 came to know that L.Ws.2 to 5 were also beaten by the accused. In the meantime, L.Ws.2 to 5 also came to Dornal to see L.W.1. On intimation from L.W.22, L.W.23 recorded the statement of L.W.1 and sent to the Station House Officer, Pedda Araveedu Police Station on point of jurisdiction, which came to be registered as a case in Crime No.23 of 2001. L.W.1 was referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for expert treatment. L.Ws.2 to 5 also came to Government Hospital, Markapur and took treatment. L.W.24 conducted investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, examined the scene of offence and prepared observation report. L.W.17 took the photos of the scene of offence. 7. On 16.04.2001 at 8-00 A.M. L.W.24 arrested A.1 to A.13 and they confessed about the spears and sticks used in the commission of offence concealed amidst Japan babul trees, which were recovered under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of the mahazar witnesses and the accused were sent to judicial custody. L.W.21 treated L.ws.2 to 5 and issued wound certificates. L.W.22 treated L.W.1 and issued wound certificate. L.W.25 further investigated into the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, after taking cognizance of the case and after complying formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, it was made over to Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur. 9. L.W.25 further investigated into the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, after taking cognizance of the case and after complying formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, it was made over to Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur. 9. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, after appearance of the accused and after following the procedure, charges under Section 148 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13, Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.2, A.7 and A.8, Section 324 of I.P.C. r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.3 to A.6 and A.9 to A.13 and Section 323 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13 and Section 307 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13, were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, during the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.32 were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked and Ex.D.1 was marked on behalf of the accused. After the closure of the evidence of prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating circumstances. 11. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found A.2 to A.5, A.9 to A.11 not guilty of the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C., found A.2 not guilty of the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and further found A.3, A.6, A.9 to A.13 not guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and further found A.1, A.5, A.9 and A.11 not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and acquitted them under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. 12. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, found A.1, A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 guilty for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. and further found A.1, A.7 and A.8 guilty of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and further found A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 guilty of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. After hearing them about the quantum of sentence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, sentenced A.1, A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. and further sentenced A.1, A.7 and A.8 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for causing injuries to P.Ws.2 to 5 and further sentenced A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for causing injuries to P.W.1 and that the sentences of imprisonment imposed against A.7 and A.8 under two counts shall run concurrently. 13. Aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1, A.6, A.7, A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13, filed the Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the rest of the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellants as above, filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 14. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004, dated 08.02.2006, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether it is liable to be interfered with? Point:- 15. Sri A. Syam Sunder Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri G. Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 was main injured and P.Ws.2 to 5 were other injured. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 had no support from independent source as P.Ws.6 to 8 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 had no support from independent source as P.Ws.6 to 8 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Still the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court believed the case of the prosecution. He would contend that when the medical officer i.e., P.W.14, who examined P.Ws.2 to 5, testified that the injuries would have been caused by blunt object, the evidence of witnesses that they are stabbed by spears cannot stands to any reason. The evidence of P.W.1 is also not corroborated by P.W.15 as only four injuries were found as against overt acts attributed against these assailants. Ex.P.1 did not contain the name of A.13. However, A.13 was also convicted. There is no possibility to P.Ws.2 to 5 to witness the attack on P.W.1. So, without any corroboration to the evidence of injured witnesses, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, convicted them and the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, erroneously confirmed the same. The learned appellate Court having held that there is no unlawful assembly, ought to have acquitted the appellants for the rest of the charges, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 16. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is fully convincing and their evidence has corroboration from medical evidence and their evidence is convincing and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur as well as the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, rightly gave findings against the Revision Petitioners with regard to the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 17. Now, it is pertinent to refer herein the relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution. 18. P.W.1 is no other than the defacto-complainant. In his evidence, he spoken about the time of offence and date of offence. According to him at 6-15 P.M., he was proceeding to the fields to fix penal board. He came to know that there was a galata held in the village and accused are coming to kill him. Then, he started running. All the accused armed with spears and sticks surrounded him. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) stabbed him with spear on the left side of the abdomen. He came to know that there was a galata held in the village and accused are coming to kill him. Then, he started running. All the accused armed with spears and sticks surrounded him. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) stabbed him with spear on the left side of the abdomen. Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him with stick on his face. Thammisetty Kistaiah (A.13) stabbed him with spear on right wrist. Thammisetty Venaktaswamy (A.6) stabbed him with spear on his left hand above the wrist. Thammisetty Tirupathaiah (A.12) stabbed him with a spear on his chest. Thammisetty Lakshminarayana (A.10) beat him with stick on his back. Remaining accused beat him with sticks on the body. 19. It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is also injured witness, that accused constructed Thette wall around the bore well. He questioned the accused about it. By then, all the accused were there. Then, Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) beat him with a spear. Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him with stick on his wrist left side. Accused also beat Santhamma, Malleswari and Veerareddy. Madugula Veerareddy and Gali Veerareddy saw the said incident. 20. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that she, Malleswari, Santhamma and Palanki Reddy went to bore to fetch drinking water. Palanki Reddy stated why Thette wall is installed around the bore well. On that the accused beat P.W.2. Then she intervened. Thammiraju (A.7) stabbed him with spear on his abdomen. Accused beat Santhamma and Malleswari. Madugula Veera Reddy was also present. 21. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that she, Palanki Reddy, Gali Veerareddy, Botchu Santhamma and Malleswari, went to the bore well. Accused installed Thette wall around the bore well. P.W.2 questioned the act of the accused. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8) beat Palanki Reddy. A.1 beat her with stone. Malleswari also sustained injuries. 22. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that she along with P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 went to the well. P.W.2 questioned Thammisetty Narayana about Thette well. Then A.8 beat P.W.2. Then she intervened. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana beat her with stone. P.Ws.2 to 4 received injuries. 23. P.Ws.6 to 8 and 11 did not support the case of the prosecution. 24. The evidence of P.W.9 is that the offence took place about three years back at 6-15 P.M. They were coming from fields. They saw all the accused armed with spears and sticks at the fields of Tirumalasetty Venkateswara Reddy. P.Ws.2 to 4 received injuries. 23. P.Ws.6 to 8 and 11 did not support the case of the prosecution. 24. The evidence of P.W.9 is that the offence took place about three years back at 6-15 P.M. They were coming from fields. They saw all the accused armed with spears and sticks at the fields of Tirumalasetty Venkateswara Reddy. He saw the accused and raised cries towards P.W.1 stating that they are coming to kill P.W.1. All the accused surrounded P.W.1. Then he (P.W.9) ran away. 25. The evidence of P.W.10 is that he came to know about the incident only. P.W.12 is a witness for observation of the scene of offence. P.W.13 is also a witness with regard to the arrest of the accused under the cover of mahazarnama. 26. P.Ws.14 and 15 are medical officers, who treated the injured and issued would certificates. P.W.14 spoken to the fact that he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and issued wound certificates. P.W.15 spoken to the fact that he examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate. 27. P.W.15 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and forwarded to Pedda Araveedu Police on point of jurisdiction. P.W.17 is the Photographer, who took the photographs of the scene of offence. P.W.18 verified the investigation of Head Constable. P.W.19 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. and taken part of certain investigation. P.W.20 is the person, who took X-rays of P.W.1 and found no bone injury. P.W.21 claimed to have done certain surgery on P.W.1. 28. According to the case of the prosecution, the incidents were two in number. One at the bore pump where some of the accused were alleged to have attacked P.Ws.2 to 5 and caused injuries. Another incident was happened when P.W.1 was going to fields. Now, as pointed out, P.Ws.2 to 5, the injured, categorically testified the manner of attack upon them. Admittedly, it is a case where their evidence has no support for independent source for the reason that P.Ws.6 to 8 did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.9 and 10 have nothing to do with regard to the incident happened at bore pump. So, what the trial Court was expected to do was to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 with care and caution. 29. P.Ws.9 and 10 have nothing to do with regard to the incident happened at bore pump. So, what the trial Court was expected to do was to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 with care and caution. 29. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, he attributed overt acts against the attack on him, against A.8 and A.7. As evident from the evidence of P.W.14, coupled with Ex.P.10 there were two injuries i.e., lacerated injury over the vertex and lacerated injury over the left side of iliac crest. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he attributed overt acts against A.7 as stabbed him with spear on his abdomen. As seen from the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.11, he found lacerated injury on the middle of the abdomen of the witness. P.W.4 attributed overt acts against A.1 as beaten her with a stone. As seen from the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.12, he found lacerated injury below the right eye. Further P.W.5 attributed overt act against Thammisetty China Narayana. As seen from the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.13, there was a lacerated injury on the right back of parietal region of the witness. So, the ocular testimony of P.Ws.2 to 5 has corroboration from the medical evidence. 30. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners is that when the evidence of P.W.14 and the Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.15 reads that the injuries would have been caused by the blunt objects, the evidence of injured witnesses that they were stabbed by spears cannot stands to any reason. In this regard, this Court would like to make it clear that it is the learned defence counsel before the trial Court, who elicited in the cross examination of P.W.14 that the injuries mentioned in Exs.P.10 to P.13 may be possible by fall on the sharp edged object and fall on rough surface. So, spear is a sharp edged object. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is that spears and stones were used in causing injuries to them, as the case may be. So, the contention of the Revision Petitioners in this regard is not tenable. 31. As regards the injuries caused to P.W.1, it is proved from the evidence of P.W.15 coupled with Ex.P.16. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is that spears and stones were used in causing injuries to them, as the case may be. So, the contention of the Revision Petitioners in this regard is not tenable. 31. As regards the injuries caused to P.W.1, it is proved from the evidence of P.W.15 coupled with Ex.P.16. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that when P.W.1 spoken about six assailants by naming them, but there were only four injuries, as such, his evidence is false. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. This Court would like to make it clear that when P.W.1 deposed that even stick was used on his back by A.10, etc. Merely because, there were only four injuries on the person of P.W.1, as against the overt acts attributed six in numbers, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. If really, P.Ws.1 to 5 had any intention to improve the case, definitely, they would have attributed more overt acts against other accused. 32. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, this Court is of the considered view that their evidence has corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 coupled with their respective would certificates. Simply because P.Ws.6 to 8 turned hostile, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. During the course of cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 5, nothing is elicited to disbelieve their testimony. As evident from the trend of cross examination of P.W.1, accused did not dispute the injuries received by P.W.1. So, the fact that P.W.1 received four injuries is not in dispute. 33. The defence of the accused is that P.W.1 has illegal contacts with Audilakshamma and her husband is Tirumalareddy Venkateswarlu and Tirumalareddy Venkateswarlu got beaten him through some others and he (P.W.1) foisted the case against the accused and accused did not beat them. It is rather surprising to know that injured would spare real culprits. 34. Another contention of the Revision Petitioners is that the trial Court convicted A.13, though his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is very difficult to accept the said contention for the reason that the name of A.13 is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. as Krishnaiah. 35. 34. Another contention of the Revision Petitioners is that the trial Court convicted A.13, though his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is very difficult to accept the said contention for the reason that the name of A.13 is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. as Krishnaiah. 35. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, goes to reveal that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses with care and caution and he made every effort and he carefully analyzed the evidence on record and ordered conviction against the present Revision Petitioners. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, having analyzed the evidence on record, found that under the circumstances the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. cannot be said to be established. As against the findings of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, there is no revision before this Court. 36. So, the scope of this revision is as to whether the Revision Petitioners are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. only? Having gone through the evidence on record and judgment of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, this Court is of the considered view that the said judgment cannot be said to be suffered with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 37. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that insofar as conviction and sentencing of the Revision Petitioners for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., the evidence on record warrant the same. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case filed by the Revision Petitioners must fail. 38. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 39. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioners/appellants in S.C.No.10 of 2002, dated 13.10.2004 and to report compliance to this Court. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.