5. The learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 and A.2, adverting to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not the owners of the land and they are not in possession of the land, and the trial court gave a finding to that effect, as the prosecution failed to prove the same and accordingly found A.1 to A.5 not guilty of the offence under Section 447 IPC; that the offences under Sections 447 IPC and 324 IPC are inter-connected with each other, therefore, once the trial court acquitted A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 447 IPC, it should have also acquitted them for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC; that since the prosecution failed to examine the doctor, who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2, the wound certificates in Exs.P.5 and P.6 cannot be taken into consideration; that the courts below have not taken note of the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2; that the independent witnesses were not cited by the prosecution to prove the alleged offences against the accused; that according to the prosecution, if really A.1 to A.5 had attacked P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.Ws. 1 and 2 would have suffered grievous injuries, but as per the evidence of P.W.6, P.Ws. 1 and 2 suffered only simple injuries, which affects the veracity of the prosecution case on that aspect, and therefore, he prays to allow the revision by setting aside the judgments of the courts below.
