Judgment :- The revision-petitioner herein was P.W. 1 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1974 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. She has filed this petition challenging the judgment in the above case acquitting respondents 1 to 3, who were accused 1 to 3 before the trial court. The said case is a double-murder case. These three respondents were charged under three heads, viz., accused 1 and 2 under charge No. 11 for an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C., for having caused the death of Thangaraj; accused-3 under charge No. 2 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 for having abetted the said offence of murder, and then accused-1 under charge-3 for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of one Ramu Nadar, husband of the petitioner. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on 7-6-1974 at about 9 a.m. in front of the house of deceased Ramu Nadar. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 6-6-1974 (the day previous to the date of occurrence) at Erattai Ooorani, there was a panchayat in connection with accused-1 having uttered abusive language against one Chellammal (petitioner herein), wife of deceased Ramu Nadar, which resulted in ill-feeling between the family of the deceased and that of accused-1. On account of that on 7-6-1974, at about 9 a.m. accused-1 picked up a quarrel with deceased Ramu Nadar in front of his house and stabbed him twice on his back near the neck and on the flank. The injured succumbed to the injuries at 10.30 a.m. on 29-6-1974. At that time, Thangaraj, (one of the sons of P.W. 1 and deceased Ramu Nadar) intervened and quarrelled with the third accused son of accused-1. Accused-2 brother-in-law of accused-1, thereupon stabbed the deceased Thangaraj with a knife on his left side of his back on the left and right flanks. Accused-3 caught hold of the deceased Thangaraj by his head and accused-1 stabbed him near the left side of his neck with the knife. Thangaraj died instantaneously. The detailed facts of the case are well set out in the judgment of the trial court and I think there is no need to reiterate the same in this revision petition. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses including official witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-23 and M.Os. Thangaraj died instantaneously. The detailed facts of the case are well set out in the judgment of the trial court and I think there is no need to reiterate the same in this revision petition. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses including official witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-23 and M.Os. 1 to 8. Of the witnesses examined, P.Ws. 1 and 3 to 6 were examined by the prosecution to speak about the occurrence. But, P.Ws. 3 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case and therefore they were treated as hostile. P.W. 7, the Judicial II Class Magistrate, speaks about the recording of the dying declaration (Ex. P-2) from deceased Ramu Nadar between 5-25 p.m. and 5-45 p.m. Ex. P-3 is the certificate appended to Ex. P-2 by P.W. 8 to the effect that the patient was conscious throughout. P.W. 8, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, speaks about the treatment given to deceased Ramu Nadar and the injuries as detailed in Ex. P-4. He has also deposed that he certified under Ex. P-3 in Ex. P-2 that the patient was conscious, when the dying declaration was recorded and that he (Ramu Nadar) died on 29-6-1974 at 10.30 a.m. P.W. 9, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, has given evidence about the injuries found on the person of deceased Ramu Nadar during the post-mortem examination Ex. P-5 is the post-mortem certificate. P.W. 10, another Medical Officer of the same hospital, has issued Ex. P. 6, post-mortem certificate in respect of the injuries found on the person of deceased Thangaraj. P.W. 2 speaks about the motive viz., accused-1 having uttered abusive language against the petitioner, wife of Ramu Nadar, which resulted in the ill-feeling between the parties, and P.W. 13 speaks about the panchayat held in connection therewith, P.W. 14 speaks that. he is the person who handed over to the police M.O. 7 which he took from the scene of occurrence and had hidden in a hayrick in the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 15, who is the Village Munsif of Erattai Ooorani, has deposed that he was present when the Sub-Inspector of Police inspected the scene and he has attested Exs. P-7 to P-11. P.W. 15, who is the Village Munsif of Erattai Ooorani, has deposed that he was present when the Sub-Inspector of Police inspected the scene and he has attested Exs. P-7 to P-11. P.W. 18, the Sub-Inspector of Police, would state that he went to the scene of occurrence on receipt of the phone message and at the scene he examined Ramu Nadar under Ex. P-16 (the first information report). Further he speaks about the registration of the case and the conduct of the inquest on the body of Thangaraj and the examination of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and others during the inquest, and further investigation done by him. P.W. 19, the Inspector of Police, verified the investigation made by P.W. 18 and laid the chargesheet against the accused on 10-8-1974. 3. When questioned with reference to the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, accused-1 had denied the illicit intimacy between himself and P.W. 1. He further stated that the husband of P.W. 1 (Ramu Nadar), had returned from Malaya, but he did not use to talk to him and others and hence he told about this to the villagers and requested them to ask the husband of P.W. 1, about this and the villagers questioned about this and that on the next day, when he was returning from his garden, Thangaraj and Ramu Nadar (both deceased) came from their houses and pushed him down and Thangaraj sat on his chest and Ramu Nadar squeezed his testicles, whereupon the first accused became unconscious. The second accused has simply stated that he has got nothing to add to what accused-1 has stated. Accused-3 has stated that on 7-6-1974 (Friday) morning, when he was in his house, Thangaraj beat him and some time later when he came out, he saw accused-1. Thangaraj, Ramu Nadar and P.W. 1, quarrelling and he saw the testicles of his father (A-1) being squeezed and Thangaraj sitting on the chest of his father and P.W. 1 poking her fingers into his eyes (Original In Tamil omitted) and that Sundari (wife of deceased Thangaraj) came with a knife. Further, he would state that he got the knife from her and thereafter he did not know what he did. The learned trial Judge, after analysing the evidence and the judicial dying declaration Ex. P-2 and the other statements of the deceased viz., Ex. Further, he would state that he got the knife from her and thereafter he did not know what he did. The learned trial Judge, after analysing the evidence and the judicial dying declaration Ex. P-2 and the other statements of the deceased viz., Ex. P-16 (first information report) recorded by P.W. 18 and Ex. P-19, the statement of deceased Ramu Nadar recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. by P.W. 18 has finally concluded thus. "Taking into consideration all these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I find accused 1 to 3 not guilty of the offences with which they are charged and they are acquitted." * The learned trial Judge has also recorded a finding, as contemplated under Section 344, Cr.P.C., that the witnesses P.Ws. 3 to 6 have intentionally given false evidence and therefore they should be prosecuted for the offence of perjury after issuing a show cause notice. 4. Mr. Sunder appearing on behalf of M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the finding of the trial court, stating that the said court, by improperly and illegally rejecting the evidence of P.W. 1 on the ground that it is not corroborated and Ex. P-2, viewing it on certain minor discrepancies, which amounts to a glaring defect of a serious nature, has caused substantial miscarriage of justice and therefore the finding of the Court should be set aside and the case remanded for a fresh trial. Further, he would contend that the trial court has by the abovesaid rejection, overlooked material evidence, which would justify interference by this court with the order of acquittal. 5. Mr. Further, he would contend that the trial court has by the abovesaid rejection, overlooked material evidence, which would justify interference by this court with the order of acquittal. 5. Mr. C. K. Venkatanarasimhan, appearing for the respondents, has cited a catena of decisions and contended that this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents does not suffer from any Manifest illegality and therefore the interests of justice do not require this court to interfere with the order of acquittal and to order a retrial, which, if ordered, would amount to a transgression of the narrow limits of the revisional jurisdiction under S. 439 of the old Code (corresponding to S. 401 of the new Code), and therefore, having regard to the severe limitations placed on this Court's power to interfere with an acquittal, that too at the instance of the private party, when the State has not preferred any appeal, this court should refrain from interfering with the finding of the court below. He would further contend that the trial court has not overlooked any material evidence, but on the other hand the reasons given by it for rejecting the entire evidence of the prosecution are quite correct and as such it cannot be said that its judgment suffers from any illegality or any other defect arising from any material evidence being overlooked. 6. Out of the decisions cited by him, I may point out certain decisions of our Supreme Court dealing with the extraordinary discretionary power vested in the High Court in interfering with the order of acquittal at the instance of the private party. 7. The learned counsel brought to my notice the decision in Chinnasamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held that the interference of the High Court with a finding of acquittal in revision would be justified in the following cases, viz., where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out the evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence, which was admitted by the trial court, to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. It has also been held that these and other cases of similar nature can properly be held cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal; in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of Section 439(4). Following and amplifying the above observations, it has been held in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh 1968- 2 SCR 287 = 1968 CrLJ 865) that although the list of grounds given in the said decision is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision, it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by the Supreme Court. Then, the learned counsel cited Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, 1974 Mad LJ (Crl) 168 = 1973 CrLJ 1404 ), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after having referred to all the leading decisions on this point including the above two decisions, have held that the power of revision conferred on a High Court by S. 439 read with Section 435, Cr.P.C., is an extraordinary discretionary power vested in the superior Court to be exercised in aid of justice in other words, to set right grave injustices; that the High Court, when approached by a private party for exercising its power of revision from an order of acquittal, should refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature, which has resulted in grave failure of justice, and that the power being discretionary it has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Next, the learned counsel brought to my notice the decision in Satyendra Nath v. Ram Narain.