The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of not interfering with a magistrate's acquittal unless there is clear error, as guided by the principles in cases of appeals against acquittals.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred against the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were charged with offences under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.

2. The case for the prosecution is that there were disputes between the 1st and 2nd accused and P.W. No. 7, who is the brother of P.W. No. 1, in respect of the affairs of a certain fund and that on the night of 15th May 1914 the two accused and two others, who were discharged by the Magistrate without a charge being framed, caused grievous hurt to P.W. Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that there was a meeting of the share-holders of the fund on the day in question, that it was proposed that the first accused and P.W. No. 7 should be removed from the office and P.W. Nos, 1 and 2 shonlcTbe appointed, that 1st and 2nd accused did not consent, to this and the meeting broke up, that on the same night, as P.W. No. 7 was returning at about 11 p. M., he was waylaid by the accused, that P.W. No. 1, who is the brother of P.W. No. 7 turned up and that the accused attacked him and also P, W. No. 2 when he came to the scene.

3. The Magistrate discharged accused Nos. 3 and 4 without framing a charge against them, and it is not alleged before me that the discharge is erroneous. On the contrary it is conceded that on the evidence they could not be held guilty of any offence.

4. The Magistrate acquitted the 1st and 2nd accused, mainly on the ground that in the telegram sent by P.W. No. 7 on the night of the occurrence no mention is made of the 1st and 2nd accused and that P.W. Nos. 3 and 7 fabricated Exhibit I for the purpose of implicating the two accused. It seems to me that, if these findings are correct, the Magistrate was justified in refusing to place any reliance upon the prosecution witnesses. Exhibit II is a telegram admittedly sent on the night of the occurrence by P.W. No. 7, and it is not Disputed that when he sent the telegram he was aware of all the facts and that, if the prosecution evidence is true, he must have been aware of the fact that 1st and 2nd accused were the assailants. The telegram, Exhibit II, sent to the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, runs as follows: Two persons mortally wounded expiring, outrage committed by neigbours. Pray immediate attention with medical officer. Copy Sub-Magistrate Coimbatore and Sub-Inspector Metlupalayam."

5. The evidence of the prosecution is that P.W. No. 1 went to the Railway station at Periayanay-akkanpalayam to give the message that, as he did not know English, he gave Exhibit Ito the Court witnesses Nos. 1 and 2, who were Railway Officials at the station, and that Exhibit II, which was an abridgement of Exhibit I, was sent as P.W. No. 7 had not sufficient money to pay for all the words which Exhibit I contained. Exhibit I contains the names of the four accufad who were charged in this case as being the assailants of P.W. Nos. 1 and 2. As pointed out by the Magistrate it is difficult to believe that with Exhibit I before them the persons sending the telegram would have sent it in the terms of Exhibit II. The whole case for the prosecution on this part of the subject has been considered very carefully and in detail by the first class Magistrate and I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is difficult to reconcile the contradictory statements made by Court witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 and P.W. Nos. 3 and 7 as to the circumstances under which Exhibit I was executed. One significant fact is that Exhibit I which ought to have been sent to the head office along with the message, if the Statement of Court witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 is to be believed, is said to have remained in the station and is produced from Periayanayak-kanpalayam station. I agree with the Magistrate in thinking that the probabilities are all against Exhibit 1 being the original statement given by P.W. No, 7 on the night of the occurrence and that very probably it was subsequently written and filed in the station for the purpose of lending colou