ORDER : On allegation of an offence against human body, State led the prosecution as against five accused for a charge under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and by a judgment dated 28.07.2008 in C.C.No.395 of 2004 the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri found all the accused not guilty and acquitted them. State was content with the decision. However, the victim/Mr. S.Srinivasa Rao/PW.1 has come up in this revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. and assails the incorrectness of the judgment of the learned trial Court. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in this revision are the accused who were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court. In this revision notices were sent to them and a learned counsel made appearance on their behalf. However, as during the subsequent days there was no representation on their behalf, this Court initiated process as against respondent Nos.1 to 5 once again and notices were served. However, none made appearance on their behalf. 3. Respondent No.6 in this revision is the State and is represented by learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments. 5. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the trial Court misread the evidence which resulted in manifest injustice requiring correction in this revision? 6. Point: Before considering the contentions raised in this revision, the facts leading to filing of this revision are required to be noticed. 7. The admitted case as seen from the record is that all the five accused are related to one another and they belong to a large family. The victim/PW.1 and the witnesses to the fact are related to one another and belong to one family. Earlier to the present case mentioned crime incident, between these two families, there were disputes and there were pending civil cases between them. In addition to the civil litigation a criminal case filed by A.4 as against PW.1 and others was already pending. It was in the backdrop of such available facts and circumstances this case arose. Accused were charged for causing simple hurt to PW.1 for an incident that occurred at 7:15 A.M. on 15.10.2004 at a place called Lam and in the front yard of the house of PW.1. It was in the backdrop of such available facts and circumstances this case arose. Accused were charged for causing simple hurt to PW.1 for an incident that occurred at 7:15 A.M. on 15.10.2004 at a place called Lam and in the front yard of the house of PW.1. A week days earlier to it and precisely on 09.10.2004 during night time at 11:00 P.M., it was alleged that the same set of accused found PW.1 alone on road coming on a motorcycle and they attacked him and caused injuries. With reference to that incident on 09.10.2004 no information was lodged with the police and no investigation was done and no complaint was filed and no prosecution was taken out. However, legal machinery was moved only when the same set of accused once again attacked PW.1 on 15.10.2004. 8. Prosecution allegation was that these five accused came to the house of PW.1 and using a chutney pounder they beat him all over the body and A.4 also sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of victim/PW.1. Though this incident occurred in the morning at 7:15 A.M. the victim chose to lodge a written information with police at 10:00 P.M. in the night. That written information was registered as Crime No.155 of 2004. The victim was forwarded to Government General Hospital, Guntur where he was examined by the doctor/PW.6. The doctor examined the victim and issued Ex.P.4-wound certificate and gave evidence at the trial stating that he did not notice any external injuries, but he found patient complaining of pain on the left shoulder and left leg. He opined that the injuries were simple in nature and were aged about 3 to 4 hours earlier to his examination. He also replied to the defence question and stated that the injuries he noticed could also have possibly occurred had PW.1 fell down on any hard surface. Victim explained the way the offence occurred. His parents testified as PWs.2 and 3 and sister of PW.2 testified as PW.4. Another agriculturist testified as PW.5. Investigating officer gave evidence as PW.7. 9. He also replied to the defence question and stated that the injuries he noticed could also have possibly occurred had PW.1 fell down on any hard surface. Victim explained the way the offence occurred. His parents testified as PWs.2 and 3 and sister of PW.2 testified as PW.4. Another agriculturist testified as PW.5. Investigating officer gave evidence as PW.7. 9. After considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P.1 to P.6, the learned trial Court discussed the entire evidence and then at para Nos.34 and 35 of its judgment it stated that the version of PWs.1 to 3 is not consistent and is discrepant and one does not match with the other and that the crime weapon was never seized and that the evidence led by the prosecution was weak and the injuries said to have been there on the body of PW.1 were not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been caused by the accused. That the weak evidence when considered in the context of earlier civil and criminal cases pending between the parties was difficult to be believed. It further observed that the only independent witness/PW.5 did not go with the prosecution story and there were no other witnesses who could be stated to be neutral to have witnessed this incident. It is on these grounds it acquitted the accused. 10. In this revision, serious comment is raised against that judgment especially referring to para No.31 of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that for the injuries inflicted on the victim on 15.10.2004 prosecution produced the wound certificate and examined the doctor and the medical evidence corroborated with the oral evidence of the witness. With reference to the incident that occurred a little earlier to this and which occurred on 09.10.2004, PW.1 obtained treatment at Arimanda Village from a Private Practitioner and he did not handover those documents to the prosecution. The learned trial Court committed grave error in mixing up of these two incidents. Learned trial Court felt that the medical evidence available with PW.1 concerning 09.10.2004 was considered as failure of prosecution in not proving the incident on 15.10.2004 through appropriate medical evidence. It is that grave error in appreciating the evidence that caused harm to the justice. The learned trial Court committed grave error in mixing up of these two incidents. Learned trial Court felt that the medical evidence available with PW.1 concerning 09.10.2004 was considered as failure of prosecution in not proving the incident on 15.10.2004 through appropriate medical evidence. It is that grave error in appreciating the evidence that caused harm to the justice. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the evidence on record is consistent and the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused but it failed to do so and therefore, the revision petitioner prays this Court to convict the accused. 11. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.6 submits that from the material available on record this Court shall reach to appropriate conclusions. 12. This being a revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. the main contention of the revision petitioner that the order of acquittal be converted into order of conviction is one that runs against the mandate in Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. That provision lays down that a High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while it considered a criminal revision petition. 13. Then the submission of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is to remit the case for retrial. The power to order for retrial is traceable to Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C. Retrial is a very serious consequence that effects both parties and therefore, it cannot be ordered for mere asking. There shall be some exceptional failures on part of the Courts below. It is only in such circumstances, the power to order retrial need invocation. The Court which held the trial in this case was the Court which had competence to try the case. The procedure adopted in trying the case is one in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant cases filed on police report. Accused were defended by their learned counsel at the trial. Accusation was espoused by the State through its learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Therefore, in this case questions of competence of Court which held the trial and questions of fair procedure for a fair trial are not at dispute. Thus, there were no fundamental errors in the trial. Accused were defended by their learned counsel at the trial. Accusation was espoused by the State through its learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Therefore, in this case questions of competence of Court which held the trial and questions of fair procedure for a fair trial are not at dispute. Thus, there were no fundamental errors in the trial. It is not a case where the evidence that was available on record was failed to be noticed by the trial Court and it is not a case where trial Court considered any evidence that was not part of the record. It is in these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a case for retrial. 14. However, the insistence of the earnest submissions of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that there was gross and erroneous appreciation of the evidence reflected at para No.31 of the judgment of the trial Court and therefore, same has to be considered as resulting in manifest injustice and this Court has to consider the matter for retrial. Therefore, it is with reference to this aspect of the matter reference to evidence on record is required. One of the observations of the learned trial Court was that the evidence concerning proof of the allegation that accused beat PW.1 was inconsistent and discrepant. This Court has gone through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 in his evidence stated that only he was beaten with a chutney pounder and he was hit all over the body. He said that his mother witnessed the incident. His mother testified as PW.2. According to her, the accused came and beat her and her husband/PW.3. This witness said that these accused pushed aside PW.1. Thus, according to the mother, accused did not inflict any injuries on PW.1 and they merely pushed him. She did not say about accused using chutney pounder and beating all over the body of PW.1. While she said about her husband also being beaten, that version was never spoken to by PW.1. According to PW.1, only his mother was there and it was not his evidence that the accused beat his mother also. PW.3 is the father of the victim. According to this witness, he was pushed aside by accused and the accused beat PW.2 and they also beat PW.1. According to PW.1, only his mother was there and it was not his evidence that the accused beat his mother also. PW.3 is the father of the victim. According to this witness, he was pushed aside by accused and the accused beat PW.2 and they also beat PW.1. PWs.2 and 3 did not say how accused beat them and what were the injuries sustained by them. They admit that they never went to hospital for any treatment. This above referred evidence was seriously considered by the learned trial Court and it found that on such a small incident that occurred at the house of victim in broad day light to the view of everyone there were so many inconsistencies and discrepancies and in that view of the matter, it rightly felt suspicion about the truth of the allegations of prosecution. In addition to this, it made a record that the independent witness/PW.5 expressed total ignorance about the prosecution version. He further said that the very sister of PW.2, who is junior paternal aunt of PW.1, having testified as PW.4 did not support her own family member’s version and went against the case of prosecution. It was in that context, the learned trial Court was unable to put faith in the version spoken to by prosecution witnesses and found that the evidence on record did not satisfy the norms of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. 15. Para No.31 of the impugned judgment which is seriously assailed in this revision is extracted now: “31. PW.1 also interestingly stated that he did not handed over any medical reports to the police when he was examined by them evidencing his taking treatment in Arimanda Village of Ponnur Mandal by R.M.P.Doctor, which raises doubt about the version of PW.1 and also about the injuries sustained by him and there is no whisper from the I.O.; about the seizure of the case property i.e., chutney ponder said to have been used by the accused, as alleged by PW.1 and PW.7 admitted that one counter case is pending between PW.1 i.e., Cr.No.154/04 and the I.O.; stating that he tried to secure the mediators but none came to act as mediator is somewhat not believable.” 16. Having read the entire evidence and the entire judgment of the trial Court, this Court finds that the contention of the revision petitioner that the learned trial Court mixed up both the incidents is certainly incorrect. What the learned Magistrate was narrating there was about the reasonable conduct and the reasonable investigation it expected of. PW.1 said that he took treatment when he was inflicted with injuries on 09.10.2004. That much of the material was certainly relevant when it was alleged that only a week days thereafter PW.1 suffered one more attack from these accused. It was that failure which was criticized by the learned trial Court. A reading of this judgment makes it very clear that the learned trial judge was fully aware that there were two incidents and the charge for trial was about later incident only. Therefore, there was absolutely no misreading of evidence or mixing up of evidence. There is no merit in the submissions made for revision petitioner. 17. Every trial Court presumes the accused innocent and the trial was essentially to verify whether prosecution through its evidence was able to dislodge that presumption. In this case the prosecution was found unable to dislodge that presumption. It is that judgment which came in this revision and that presumption continues to hold the field. It is in that context the Courts have been always cautioned to be circumspect in considering the revision against acquittal. 18. In the context of all the above law and looking at the facts available in the case, this Court finds that the trial Court judgment was right on facts and law and this revision has not demonstrated any manifest errors resulting in any injustice. Therefore, point is answered against the revision petitioner. 19. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 28.07.2008 of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in C.C.No.395 of 2004. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.