1. This revisionis laid questioning the acquittal of A.1 to A.4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District in C.C.No.434 of 2000. The revision is laid by the de facto complainant. The respondents 2 to 5 are the accused.

2. Thecase of the prosecution is

a) PW.1 is the son of PW.2. A.1 and A.2 are the sons of A.3. A.4 is their relative. The accused are inimically disposed towards PWs.1 and 2.

b) On 22.09.2000, at about 8.30 p.m., PW.2 was chitchatting with PW.4 in front of the house of PW.3. All the accused at that time attacked PW.2. While A.1 beat PW.2 with an iron rod, A.2 beat him with a stick. A.3 and A.4 beat PW.2 with their hands. In the process, PW.2 sustained two grievous injuries and two simple injuries.

3. The accused were charge sheeted for the offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned J.F.C.M. charged A.1 for the offence u/s.326 IPC, A.2 for the offence u/s.324 IPC, A.3 and A.4 for the offence u/s.323 IPC and A.2 to A.4 for the offences u/s.326 r/w Sec.34 IPC. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.4. Considering that no case was made out against the accused, the learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused. PW.1 preferred the present revision impugning the judgment of acquittal.

4. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the learned trial Judge suffers from any error of law.

5. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused and that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge is justified. As rightly noticed, PW.2 is the victim. PW.1 is his son. PWs.3 and 4 are supposed to be eyewitnesses for the incident proper. PW.5 is a corroborative witness. PW.6 is the Doctor, who treated PW.2. PW.7 arrested the accused. However, he was not the main Investigating Officer.

6. Thecase of the prosecution is that there has been enmity between the accused on the one side and PWs.1 and 2 on the other side. It is alleged that on 11.09.2000, at about 8 p.m., while PW.2 was chitchatting with PW.4 in front of the house of PW.3, the accused jointly attacked PW.2. A.1 allegedly beat on the left hand of PW.2 with a rod. A.2 allegedly beat on the left leg with a stick. All the accused thereafter attacked PW.2 with sticks. PW.1 received information that his father, PW.2 was beaten. He rushed to the scene of offence and found his father lying on the road. He immediately shifted PW.2 in the auto of PW.5 to Sultanabad Police Station. He lodged Ex.P.1 complaint at the Police Station. Police sent PW.2 to the Government Hospital for treatment. PW.6, who treated PW.2, found fracture of the left radius and fracture of the fibula. He found four injuries in all, out of which two were grievous. PW.6 issued Ex.P.4 medical certificate.

7. Theincident allegedly occurred in front of the house of PW.3 while PW.2 was chitchatting with PW.4. PW.1 was not an eyewitness at all. He rushed to the scene of offence only after receipt of the information that his father sustained injuries. While PWs.3 and 4 were eyewitnesses, they did not support the prosecution story. PWs.3 and 4 were considered to be hostile and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions to PWs.3 and 4. Nevertheless, they did not support the prosecution story. They claimed that they heard commotion, rushed to the scene of offence and found PW.2 in an injured condition. PW.4 went further and deposed that no incident occurred between the accused on the one side and PW.2 on the other side.

8. Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/de facto complainant submitted that PW.5 corroborated the evidence of prosecution. PW.5 is an auto driver. It is the case of PW.1 that PW.1 shifted the injured