JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Rev.P.01(AP)/2018 and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Rev.P. 02(AP)/2018. Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 1. The two criminal revision petitions are taken up together for disposal as both the petitions arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, West Siang District convicting all the petitioners herein out of the same prosecution and such judgment was affirmed by the appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 27.10.2017. 2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 401 read with 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been preferred by the present petitioners assailing the judgment & order dated 27.10.2017 in G.R. Case No. 54/2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, West Siang District and judgment & order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basar in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2017, whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.10.2017 was dismissed. 3. The prosecution case unfolded from the materials available on record is to the effect that at about 03:30 PM on 04.07.2011, the petitioners jumped over and assaulted badly the informant, Deputy Commissioner cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, when he rejected the bail applications preferred by the petitioners in connection with some criminal cases. It was further alleged that due to such assault, the informant sustained injuries on his person and the accused had also damaged the office chamber of the informant badly. On the date of incident itself, the F.I.R. was lodged before the Office-in-Charge, Alo, West Siang District. On the basis of the said ajahar, Alo P.S. Case No. 54/11 under Sections 86/332/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act was registered. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioners namely Minto Ete, Nyali Bagra, Gebin Loya and Jomkar Loyi. Though it was alleged that one Gego Doji, assaulted the informant, no evidence was found against him and accordingly, he was not charge-sheeted. It is also disclosed in the charge-sheet that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer could not gather sufficient evidence to establish commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Though it was alleged that one Gego Doji, assaulted the informant, no evidence was found against him and accordingly, he was not charge-sheeted. It is also disclosed in the charge-sheet that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer could not gather sufficient evidence to establish commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, charge-sheet under Section 451/186/332/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act against the four petitioners namely, Minto Ete, Nyali Bagra, Gebin Loya and Jomkar Loyi was filed. 5. Based on the Charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, framed charges against the accused petitioners under Sections 332/34 IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act. The charges were read out and explained to them but the accused persons/ petitioners had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence matter went up to trial. 6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined 19 (nineteen) witnesses including the I.O., the victim and the Doctor. 7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2017, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alo, had convicted the accused persons/ petitioners under Section 332 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-only and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 8. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2017, the learned trial court had held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charges brought against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence. By rejecting the arguments advanced by the learned defense counsel to the effect that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were full of inconsistencies and material contradictions raising serious doubts on the prosecution story, the learned court below held that, those were minor discrepancies and would have no bearing in the prosecution case. 9. Such decision of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basar in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2007, which is also impugned in the present proceeding. 10. Submission of Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners: I. Assailing the impugned judgment and orders, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners have been convicted without any materials, even remotely indicating that the petitioners assaulted the informant. 10. Submission of Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners: I. Assailing the impugned judgment and orders, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners have been convicted without any materials, even remotely indicating that the petitioners assaulted the informant. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the three eye witnesses namely Mige Lollen, Sub Inspector-Rajen Yekar and the informant i.e. Deputy Commissioner himself, during the cross-examination clearly deposed that they did not see who physically assaulted the informant and that there were many people present inside the Court room. Therefore, conviction on the basis of such evidence is nothing but perverse. II. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the PW-10, the Sub Inspector-Sri Rajen Yekar in his cross-examination clearly stated that he could not exactly see who had assaulted the Deputy Commissioner as there were so many people surrounding him. Therefore, the learned trial Court below ought to have discarded testimonies of these witnesses. III. PW-3, the PSO of the informant during his deposition stated that the informant i.e. Deputy Commissioner had told him that he sustained the injury while trying to save himself by hitting the top of the table. And therefore, a clear doubt was created as to whether the informant got injured by falling down or due to assault by the accused persons, submits Mr. Bora, the learned Senior Counsel. IV. Both the Courts below had failed to appreciate that the informant i.e. Deputy Commissioner himself deposed that he had not seen who had assaulted him and might have fallen down during the time of scuffle due to slippery floor. The materials available on record clearly establish that when the alleged offence was committed the crowd present in the room raised hue and cry. And that the floor was newly constructed and slippery. Therefore, in the backdrop of aforesaid material evidence, the petitioners could not have been singled out and ought not to have been convicted, asserts the learned Senior Counsel. V. The hostile prosecution witnesses PW-1 was not even declared as hostile and no cross-examination was done by the prosecution side. The statement of other hostile witnesses (PW-2, PW-11) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. were not proved through the I.O., nor the said witnesses were confronted with such statement made during the investigation before police. V. The hostile prosecution witnesses PW-1 was not even declared as hostile and no cross-examination was done by the prosecution side. The statement of other hostile witnesses (PW-2, PW-11) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. were not proved through the I.O., nor the said witnesses were confronted with such statement made during the investigation before police. In view of such factual position, the learned Courts below ought to have discarded the testimony of such witnesses, submits Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel. VI. In absence of any single independent witness deposing that the accused persons/petitioners had assaulted the informant Deputy Commissioner and in view of clinching deposition made by the informant himself that he did not see who assaulted him, the learned Court below has committed glaring illegality in convicting the accused persons/petitioners, argues Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel. VII. While concluding his argument, Mr. A. M. Bora learned Senior Counsel submits that decision of the learned Courts below are perverse, arbitrary and capricious inasmuch as improperly accepted irrelevant evidences and therefore, the judgment of the trial Courts below are liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. Per contra, Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh submits : I. There are clinching evidences that the accused petitioners attacked the informant Deputy Commissioner. II. The learned Addl. PP further submits that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and circumstances proved by the prosecution leads to a conclusion that none other than accused petitioners had assaulted the Deputy Commissioner resulting in injury and therefore such conviction based on circumstantial evidence may not be interfered in exercise of revisional power. III. The chronological sequence of events proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and unbroken chain of events leads to inevitable conclusion that none other than accused persons had physically assaulted inasmuch as only their bail petitions were rejected. 12. Discussion, reasons and Decision of this Court. A. The analysis of prime witnesses: In the case in hand, PW-3 Sri Mige Lollen, PW-8 Sri Gamtum Padu, PW-10 Sub Inspector Sri Rajen Yekar and PW-18 victim, the Deputy Commissioner are examined as the eye witnesses. The PW-7 is the Doctor who examined the victim and proved the medical report. Therefore, let this Court look into their depositions first. I. PW-3 was the Personal Security Officer of the CJM/Deputy Commissioner. The PW-7 is the Doctor who examined the victim and proved the medical report. Therefore, let this Court look into their depositions first. I. PW-3 was the Personal Security Officer of the CJM/Deputy Commissioner. During Examination-in-chief, he deposed that he was standing outside and while hearing two sounds “hey” “hey” and he went inside the Court of the Deputy Commissioner cum CJM. He saw Gebin Loya (petitioner No. 1 in Crl. Rev.P.01(AP)/2018) was lying on the table of the Court. One accused Nyali Bagra (petitioner No. 3.. in Crl. Rev.P.01(AP)/2018) was holding one statue in his hand and was about to assault the Deputy Commissioner. He snatched the statue from the accused. He also saw Deputy Commissioner was down in the floor and one Kirli Loyi was over him and was trying to protect him. PW-3 further deposed that when he asked the Deputy Commissioner what happened to him, it was informed that somebody tried to assault him and while trying to save himself he had hit the top of the table and got injured. He further deposed that he was told that no one has physically assaulted him. He also deposed that he has given the name of the persons and asked to arrest them. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners were arrested. During cross-examination, he affirmed that Deputy Commissioner has not told him who tried to assault him. He further stated that he do not know why the accused persons were directed to be arrested, he did not see any material damage inside the chamber and he saw two three persons were falling in the floor. II. PW-8 is one of the star witnesses for the prosecution. He was attached to Office of the Deputy Commissioner for maintenance of law and order duty. He deposed that when the Deputy Commissioner rejected the bail accused Jomkar Loyi (petitioner No.2 ) he had asked the Deputy Commissioner as to why they were not granted bail even though other persons were granted bail. The other accused persons were also raising their voices. Arguments were going on. There was sudden hue and cry, everybody was standing from the chair. As the Deputy Commissioner was not in his chair, the PW-8 rushed towards Deputy Commissioner’s table. He had hold the accused Nyali Bagra from behind and told him not to do any illegal activity, which the accused obliged. Arguments were going on. There was sudden hue and cry, everybody was standing from the chair. As the Deputy Commissioner was not in his chair, the PW-8 rushed towards Deputy Commissioner’s table. He had hold the accused Nyali Bagra from behind and told him not to do any illegal activity, which the accused obliged. There two three peoples, two/three peoples had fallen over the ground. The floor was slippery and he could see, two three peoples were falling on the floor. The Deputy Commissioner stood up from the floor and the PW-8 released Nyali Bagra. The PW-8 further affirmed that Deputy Commissioner was assaulted, he got injured and PW-8 saw him falling on the ground. However, as he was sitting on a bit distance, he could not see exactly as to who had assaulted the Deputy Commissioner. He also deposed that as he was holding Nyali Bagra, he could not see properly who were falling on the floor with the Deputy Commissioner. As the floor was newly constructed and slippery, the police could not do much. During his cross-examination, it was reaffirmed that he did not see who had assaulted Deputy Commissioner. He further stated that he cannot surely say as to whether Deputy Commissioner was assaulted but Deputy Commissioner was falling on the ground. During cross-examination, he also stated that as he was apprehending that Nyali Bagra might assault Deputy Commissioner, he rushed to hold the Nyali Bagra to save the Deputy Commissioner. As he was holding Nyali Bagra, he could not see the other accused persons. III. PW-10 is another star witness of the prosecution. He was the Investigating Officer who arrested the accused and produced the accused persons before the CJM/Deputy Commissioner on the date of bail hearing. In examination-in-chief, deposed that he was present during the hearing of the bail application. The bail applications were rejected. The accused persons started hue and cry. They pushed him aside and rushed to the Deputy Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner was physically assaulted by the accused persons. He rushed and tried to save Deputy Commissioner as he was nearby and also sustained minor injury on his body. During cross-examination, he deposed that he fell down as he was pushed by accused persons. He also deposed that he did not fell down on the ground but did slip from his position. He rushed and tried to save Deputy Commissioner as he was nearby and also sustained minor injury on his body. During cross-examination, he deposed that he fell down as he was pushed by accused persons. He also deposed that he did not fell down on the ground but did slip from his position. The PW-8 also deposed that he was standing in front of the accused persons and accused persons were standing in queue besides him. Suddenly the accused persons pushed him due to which, he slipped and the accused persons rushed to the Deputy Commissioner for assaulting him. He deposed that he could not see who has assaulted the Deputy Commissioner as there were so many people surrounding him. IV. PW-18 is the victim Deputy Commissioner. During examination-in-chief, he deposed that on the date of occurrence there was huge gathering inside his chamber. During that time, some accused persons, their bailors, some of officers and staffs including police personnel were present inside his chamber. There was chaotic situation and the accused persons and their bailors who were present for bail hearing had attacked him. He received a blow in his face and fell down. He got scratches on his back and his shirt was torn. The accused persons standing on the dock were the accused persons who were present during the time of bail hearing. During cross-examination he deposed that when the offence was committed, he was writing order and sitting in his chair. At the time of the incident, his chamber was newly fitted with tiles and was very slippery. It might happen that during the time of scuffle he might have fell down due to slippery floor, deposed the victim Deputy Commissioner. He also deposed that because of the similar appearance of the tribal people, he might not recognize as to whether the accused persons standing on the dock were the persons who attacked him. He further deposed that during the time of attack he was writing order and could not see as to who are the persons who have attacked on him. V. PW-7, Dr. Yijum Tato deposed that on 04.07.2011 he was on duty as Emergency Medical Officer and he was called to the chamber of the deputy Commissioner, Aalo to give medical treatment to Deputy Commissioner. After examination he found multiple simple injuries on face, head, chest and both arm. V. PW-7, Dr. Yijum Tato deposed that on 04.07.2011 he was on duty as Emergency Medical Officer and he was called to the chamber of the deputy Commissioner, Aalo to give medical treatment to Deputy Commissioner. After examination he found multiple simple injuries on face, head, chest and both arm. He gave medical certificate to the police and proved the same as Exhibit.1 (Injury Report). During cross-examination he stated that injury on face can be sustained by hitting on a table and injury on the body can be sustained by one person falling over another person in theoretical terms. B. The rest of the witnesses: The rest of the witnesses had either become hostile or did not witness the occurrence. They are:- I. PW-1, Sri Deba Loya, though became hostile neither he was declared as hostile nor he was cross-examined by the defense or he was confronted with his statement made before the I.O. during investigation. II. PW-2, Miss Yani Buyi also became hostile. Though she was cross-examined by the Prosecution, the witness was not confronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. nor her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was proved through the I.O. III. PW-4, Smti Topi Kammum has not seen the incident. Similar is the case in respect of PW-5 Sri Tani Diru. IV. PW-6, Sri Nyumsi Karcho, the peon of the Deputy Commissioner’s office testified that he had not witnessed the occurrence but saw that Deputy Commissioner was in tension. He is not aware of any incident or noise or occurring anything inside the Deputy Commissioner’s office. V. PW-9, Sri Gego Doji was a bailor. His story is also similar that he has not witnessed anything. In his cross-examination he has stated that inside Deputy Commissioner’s chamber no disturbance was created by the accused persons. VI. PW-11, Sri Kirli Loyi who was an eye witness and father of one of the accused was declared hostile and the prosecution cross- examined him. Though he was confronted with his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he denied making of such statement before the police. VII. PW-12, Sri Minrik Nochi was the Public Prosecutor and was present during the bail hearing and he witnessed that after rejection of the bail application, there was shouting and argument in the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner between the Presiding Officer and the bailors. VII. PW-12, Sri Minrik Nochi was the Public Prosecutor and was present during the bail hearing and he witnessed that after rejection of the bail application, there was shouting and argument in the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner between the Presiding Officer and the bailors. Seeing such situation he left the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner. VIII. PW-13, Sri Yomge Ado an Advocate, was appearing for the accused persons in the bail hearing. After pronouncement of order of rejection of bail, one of the accused was pleading before the Deputy Commissioner that the accused persons may be allowed to go on bail. Thereafter, the DC asked him to left the chamber and accordingly he left the chamber and is not aware if any incident had taken place after he left the chamber. IX. PW-14, Sri Doge Dirchi, the Senior PA to the Deputy commissioner deposed that he heard the sound and shouting and hearing such sound he tried to enter into the chamber but by that time the crowd were coming out. He has not seen the occurrence but saw blood coming from the nose of the Deputy Commissioner. X. PW-15, Sri V. V. Ramkrishan, the Sheristader who was attached to the Court of the Deputy Commissioner deposed that he was asked to prepare remand order by the Deputy Commissioner after rejection of the bail applications. Accordingly he went out from the chamber. After sometime, he came back to the chamber and saw files on the table of the Deputy Commissioner were scattered here and there and he was told that some incident took place there. He was not seen any injury on the body of the CJM. XI. PW-16, Sri Mrinal Kanta De is the Sub Inspector who continued with the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. He exhibited and proved the charge-sheet. XII. PW-17, Sri Nabam Had was the Police Officer who initially took up the investigation. He proved the sketch map and seizure list. XIII. PW-19, Sri Tapon Kumar Saikia, the Officer-in-Charge of Aalo Police Station who accompanied the PW-10 to the Court premises along with arrested accused persons. He met Sheristadar and he was asked to take the accused persons to the chamber of Deputy Commissioner for production. He proved the sketch map and seizure list. XIII. PW-19, Sri Tapon Kumar Saikia, the Officer-in-Charge of Aalo Police Station who accompanied the PW-10 to the Court premises along with arrested accused persons. He met Sheristadar and he was asked to take the accused persons to the chamber of Deputy Commissioner for production. After production, he asked the PW-10 to stay in the chamber with the accused persons and he went out of the chamber and sitting in the waiting room and at that point of time, he heard some sound from the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner and immediately entered into the chamber. He saw Deputy Commissioner was sitting on his chair and there were some injury marks on his face. He saw one accused person was holding one Buddha statue on his hand and he cannot remember his name but he snatched the statue from his hand. Thereafter getting the remand order, the accused persons were sent to the judicial custody. During cross-examination he deposed that he saw other accused persons standing inside the Deputy Commissioner’s chamber. Except accused persons he saw other accused persons were inside the DCs chamber. C. Reasons and Decision I. On the aforesaid material, the learned trial Court held that the victim Deputy Commissioner/ CJM was physically assaulted in his chamber during his official duty and he sustained physical injury. While determining further, the learned trial court held that from the chronological sequence of evidence and unbroken chain of events, it can safely be concluded that none other than the accused persons had physically assaulted the DC/CJM for rejection of their bail applications. Such decision and finding was affirmed by the appellate court for the similar reason. II. The law is by now too well settled that when prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the accused can be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are established towards the guilt of the accused. III. Such decision and finding was affirmed by the appellate court for the similar reason. II. The law is by now too well settled that when prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the accused can be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are established towards the guilt of the accused. III. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy –vs-State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 79 while dealing with such an issue held at paragraph—as follows:- the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must (1)“;be cogently and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence”. VI. Such proposition of law was subsequently followed in the case of State of UP –Vs-Ram Balak and Anr reported in 2008 13 SCALE 541 . VII. From the deposition of the vital witnesses, i.e. the PW-3, PW-8, PW-10, PW-18 (victim), a doubt has been created whether the Deputy Commissioner got injured due to assault or due to his falling down or hitting the table. The further doubt is created to the effect that even if assaulted, actually who assaulted the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as none of the eye witnesses could affirm who actually assaulted the Deputy Commissioner including the victim Deputy Commissioner. Yet another doubt was created to the effect that whether the Deputy Commissioner fell down for the force used during assault or he fell down due to newly constructed slippery floor of the office chamber of the Deputy Commissioner. VIII. The evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, by no stretch of imagination had established the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused inasmuch as there is no conclusive chain of circumstances to exclude every possible hypothesis except that the accused persons are guilty. VIII. The evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, by no stretch of imagination had established the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused inasmuch as there is no conclusive chain of circumstances to exclude every possible hypothesis except that the accused persons are guilty. In the case in hand, the material available on record discloses no chain of evidence, not to say any chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons and showing that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused are available. In that view of the matter the learned trial Court below committed illegality by convicting the accused petitioners inasmuch as such decision is perversed. IX. The learned trial Court convicted the accused persons on the ground that chronological sequence of evidence and unbroken chain of events brings the conclusion that none other than the accused persons had physically assaulted the Deputy Commissioner for the rejection of their bail application. But the learned Court is absolutely silent what are the events and the sequences and incriminating facts that are established towards guilt of the accused persons. From reading of the judgment it is discernable that the sequence of events on the basis of which, the learned trial Court relied on and treated to be proved are (i) that the accused were inside the Court room, (ii) the victim rejected their bail, (iii) there was a hue and cry, (iv) the victim got injured and therefore, none other than the accused can assault the victim as only their bail applications were rejected. Such sequence of event even if proved, the fact whether the victim got injured for his accidental fall or by assault is even not proved and therefore, the aforesaid circumstances, cannot lead to a inevitable conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by accused and none else. Such sequence of event even if proved, the fact whether the victim got injured for his accidental fall or by assault is even not proved and therefore, the aforesaid circumstances, cannot lead to a inevitable conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by accused and none else. X. The learned appellate Court below while dealing with the issue of standard of proof, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Iqbal Moosa Patel –Vs-State of Gujrat reported in 2011 2 SCC 198 and held that requirement of proof of the case beyond doubt should be a proof beyond a shadow of doubt and held that the circumstances against the accused has conclusively been proved and further held that absence of direct evidence to show that the accused actually assaulted the DC is of no consequence in the facts and circumstance of the case. Such finding is perverse inasmuch as the prosecution even had failed to prove the commission offence by the accused petitioners under section 332 of IPC read with 34 of IPC. XI. The Section 332 of IPC requires that to convict a person under the said provision, the prosecution must prove that the accused must voluntarily cause hurt to a public servant while discharging public duty or with intent to prevent or deter the public servant or other person from discharging his duty etc. In the case in hand, the prosecution, as discussed hereinabove has failed to prove that the accused person had voluntarily hurt the Deputy Commissioner/CJM or was obstructing. To establish the charge under Section 34 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that two or more persons has committed any criminal act with common intention, each of them will be liable for the act as the offence is committed by them individually. Therefore, to bring home such charge, the prosecution must prove that a criminal act is done by several persons, the criminal act must be to further common intention of all. In the case in hand, the commission of offence is not proved and therefore, the application of section 34 IPC does not come at all. XII. In view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it will be unsafe to convict the accused petitioners inasmuch as a doubt as discussed hereinabove regarding the involvement of the accused petitioners has been created. XII. In view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it will be unsafe to convict the accused petitioners inasmuch as a doubt as discussed hereinabove regarding the involvement of the accused petitioners has been created. Therefore, the conviction as pronounced by the trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court are hereby set aside and quashed giving benefit of doubt to the accused petitioners and the petitioners are accordingly acquitted from all the charges. The accused petitioners be set at liberty and the bail bond, if any, stands discharged. XIII. Registry to return the LCR to the learned trial Court below with a copy of this order to both the Courts below. XIV. The revision petitions are allowed in the aforesaid term.