JUDGMENT 1. Assailing the judgment dtd. 12/5/2009 in S.C.No.150 of 2006on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Tanuku, the petitioner/P.W.1/de facto complainant filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 19/3/2010. During pendency of this revision, respondent Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 4 died on 30/8/2017 and 12/4/2011 respectively and, as such, the present revision against respondent Nos.2 and 4 is dismissed as abated, vide order dtd. 1/12/2023. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that: i) On 5/3/2005 at about 05.00 p.m., due to disputes, accused Nos.3 and 4 abused P.W.4 in filthy language. Later, accused Nso.1 and 2 went out and on the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4, they made an attack on the family of P.W.1. Then accused No.2 brought a knife from his house, abused P.W.1 in filthy language and forcibly hacked on the hand of P.W.1 by uttering that 'Chaavu Na Kodaka', as a result, P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury. Accused No.1 was also brought another knife from his house, attacked on P.W.2, hacked on his neck, head and both hands and caused bleeding injuries to him. Accused No.2 caught hold tuft of hair of P.W.3, dragged her on the ground, removed her wearing saree, thereby outraged her modesty and hacked her with the same knife on her back and inflicted her to bleeding injury. All the accused made the daughter of P.W.1 fell down and accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked her with legs indiscriminately. ii) Basing on the report submitted by P.W.1, P.W.13 Sub- Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2005under Ss. 307, 354 r/w.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 4 and investigated into. 4. All the accused made the daughter of P.W.1 fell down and accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked her with legs indiscriminately. ii) Basing on the report submitted by P.W.1, P.W.13 Sub- Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2005under Ss. 307, 354 r/w.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 4 and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, Police laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku and committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.150 of 2006on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 not guilty of the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC, found accused No.2 is not guilty of the offence under Sec. 354 of IPC, found accused Nos.1 to 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC, found accused Nos.3 and 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 307 r/w.34 IPC, found accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 354 r/w.34 IPC and accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted under Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant/P.W.1. 6. Heard Sri MD.Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Assistant Special Public Prosecutor for the 5threspondent-State. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court?" 8. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court in acquitting accused for the said offences, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant/P.W.1. 9. It is a fact found from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 are close relatives. P.W.1 and accused No.2 are cousins by relation. 10. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court in acquitting accused for the said offences, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant/P.W.1. 9. It is a fact found from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 are close relatives. P.W.1 and accused No.2 are cousins by relation. 10. The categorical contentions of the accused are that no independent witnesses were cited or examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident, even as per Ex.P.1 the presence of any neighbor was referred; that even though accused received injuries and Cr.No.22 of 2005 was registered basing on the complaint of accused as per the remand report, the same is not brought to the notice of the Court by the prosecution; that the delay in sending the F.I.R. is fatal to the case of the prosecution; that there is no material on record to say that P.W.4 received any injuries in the alleged incident; that M.O.1 is a sickle, but not knife and there is a wrong description in Ex.P.1 about the crime weapon, which shows falsity in the prosecution version; that prosecution failed to prove the motive against the accused; that there is no evidence on record about the alleged outrage of modesty of P.W.3 by accused No.2; that the non-examination of mother of accused No.2, who is admittedly residing in the half portion of accused No.2 from where the alleged M.Os.1 and 2 were brought and handed over to S.I. of Police is fatal to the prosecution case and that there are several omissions and improvements in the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4, which creates any amount of doubt against the prosecution case. 11. On the other hand, the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record and erred in acquitting the accused for the said offences. 12. Now this Court has to verify whether there is any incriminating material available on record against the accused for convicting them to the said offences. 13. In the present case on hand, to establish the said offences, the prosecution has relied upon testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution version and they denied the contentions in Exs.P.2 and P.3 statements. 13. In the present case on hand, to establish the said offences, the prosecution has relied upon testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution version and they denied the contentions in Exs.P.2 and P.3 statements. There is no evidence placed on record to prove that P.W.3 received any injuries on her face. If really P.W.3 had fallen out towards front side due to pulling of saree she should have received some injuries or abrasion due to falling on cement road, but it is not so. 14. It is the testimony of P.W.1 that accused No.1 attempted to hack him with knife. But, in view of the testimony of P.W.11 doctor, P.W.1 sustained injuries, which are simple in nature and might have caused with a sharp object and he found only abrasion as mentioned in Ex.P.19 wound certificate. If the accused No.1 attacked on P.W.1 with a knife, there is no possibility of sustaining such simple injuries. As such, the testimony of P.W.1 that he received grievous injuries in both hands as stated is not true. 15. Even though P.Ws.1 to 4 testified about the incident and overt-acts of the accused, the omissions and improvements stated by them while narrating the incident are serious in nature and there are several reasonable doubts against the prosecution version. It cannot be safely held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is cogent and convincing. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the accused to attack and cause injuries to P.Ws.1 to 4. The evidence placed on record shows that accused No.1 and P.W.10 belongs to different political parties and there is political rivalry between the both parties. 16. It is also contention of the accused that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. The material on record goes to show that Ex.P.1 complaint was given and Ex.P.26 F.I.R. was prepared long after the injured witnesses were sent to the hospital at Boath. The delay in sending the F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution. This creates a genuine and serious doubt over the case against the prosecution. 17. Furthermore, the recovery of M.Os.1 to 13 is doubtful and not proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The delay in sending the F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution. This creates a genuine and serious doubt over the case against the prosecution. 17. Furthermore, the recovery of M.Os.1 to 13 is doubtful and not proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Ex.P.1, the prosecution failed to prove that accused are responsible for the injuries found on the body of P.Ws.1 and 2 and that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the intention or motive of the accused. It is not in dispute that P.W.3 had not received any abrasion or injuries on her face, though the prosecution version is that she had fallen down on the street and P.W.4 was also not examined by P.W.11 medical officer. 18. More so, in the remand report itself P.W.13 investigating officer mentioned about the injuries sustained by accused Nos.2 to 4 during the incident and report submitted by them was registered as a counter case in Cr.No.22 of 2005 under Sec. 324 r/w.34 IPC. This shows that the prosecution has not placed the true genesis of the case by placing evidence in respect of counter case referred to supra and also injuries sustained by accused Nos.2 to 4. 19. The failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused can significantly impact a prosecution case. There is an importance to explain the injuries sustained by the accused. When an accused person sustains injuries during an incident, it becomes crucial for the prosecution to provide a satisfactory explanation for those injuries. If the prosecution fails to do so, it can lead to doubts about the credibility of their case. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused can result in the inferences that 'the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses may be untrue. The injuries support the plea taken by the accused. The prosecution must clarify how the accused, who is alleged to have assaulted the deceased, sustained injuries during the same occurrence'. 20. In the case of Mohar Rai v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that "the prosecution's failure to offer any explanation for injuries indicates that the evidence of prosecution witnesses may not be wholly true". 21. Similarly, in Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 . 20. In the case of Mohar Rai v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that "the prosecution's failure to offer any explanation for injuries indicates that the evidence of prosecution witnesses may not be wholly true". 21. Similarly, in Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of explaining injuries on the accused. It stated that the absence of such an explanation could affect the prosecution's case and also observed that "where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, results (i) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (ii) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the accused". 22. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2018) 7 SCC 536 . referred the above judgments by fortifying the contentions and held that "A duty caste on the prosecution to furnish proper explanation to the Court how the person who has been accused of assaulting the deceased, received injuries on his person in the same occurrence. We may note that the injuries alleged to have been caused are not properly explained. An alternative story is set up wherein the injuries are attributed to mob justice, such allegations without substantive evidence cannot be accepted". 23. In the present case on hand, the prosecution utterly fails to explain the alleged injuries sustained by the accused on the same incident, which is also fatal to the prosecution version in view of the above settled legal position. Viewing from any angle, the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offences against the accused. 24. The trial Court elaborately discussed the evidence on record and rightly came to conclusion that there are several omissions and improvements in the testimony of PWs.1 to 4 and their testimony is not cogent and convincing, the unexplained delay in sending the F.I.R. is also fatal to the case of the prosecution and as per the material on record there is a counter case filed by the accused against P.Ws.1 to 4. 25. 25. Now, it is relevant to refer certain pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in between Ganesha v. Sharanappa4, wherein it was held that "in a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of the case. By way of abundant caution, we may herein observe that 4 (2014) 1 SCC 87 interference with the order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The High Court may also interfere in those cases of acquittal caused by shutting out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the High Court in revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into that of an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order." 26. Further, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.12 as follows: "12. ... Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 401 in terms provides that nothing in Sec. 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid subsec., which places a limitation on the powers of the Revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid subsec., which places a limitation on the powers of the Revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to ] make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party." 27. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. The State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 . that "so far as the victim is concerned, the victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Sec. 372 proviso and the proviso to Sec. 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like subsec. (4) of Sec. 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. (4) of Sec. 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. In a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. or Sec. 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Sec. 372 or Sec. 378(4), as the case may be. 28. In view of the above, now, this Court after perusing the material placed before the trial Court, nothing found on record to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. This Court also perused the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1962 SCC Online SC 32. and Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83. wherein it was clear that in-order to set aside the order of acquittal, there must be some material evidence, thereafter only, the Court can set aside the acquittal order, and remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial or even to re-appreciate the evidence. When there is no material on record to find the guilt of the accused, the Revisional Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal. 29. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does not find any perversity or manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the trial Court to interfere with the well-articulated judgment and there are no merits in this revision. Thereby, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 30. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dtd. 12/5/2009 in S.C.No.150 of 2006on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.