Short Note : 1. Ten Non-applicant No.4 Hemraj executed a sale deed Ex. P-1 dt. 11-1-61 purporting to sell Khasra No. 55/3 on his own behalf and on behalf of his mother, Smt. Gangabai after accepting a consideration of Rs. 4000/-. The recitals in the sale deed showed that the possession of the land was given to the purchaser Garjubai of wife applicant Chandulal. 2. According to the applicant and according to the prosecution case, Chandulal cultivated the land of about a year or so. At the time of the incident, he had his crop of Tilli over the field. On 9-9-72, the non-applicants started damaging the crop sown by the complainant. They let lose their cattle into the field and were also uprooting the standing crop of Tilli Chandulal, his wife and his son who were present on the field protested. The non-applicants 1 to 4 thereafter beat them severely with axe and lathi causing several injuries to them. A report of the incident was made on the same day. They were sent for medical examination. Dr. Hirdayanarayan (P. W. 10) found one incised injury and three other injuries on the person of Chandulal. He had also sustained a fracture. Amarsingh s/o Chandulal sustained two contused laceration and Sarjubai had also a contused laceration and an abrasion on her. A case U/s 326 read with section 34 and U/s 323 was registered against Vindya Prakash, Brijkishore and Hemraj and Kishorilal was charged with substantive offence under section 326 and 323 IPC. The learned trial Magistrate came to a conclusion that the injuries to Chandulal his wife Sarjubai (PW-3) and his son Amarsingh (PW-2) were caused by the non-applicants. He, however, held that the non-applicants were protected inasmuch as they had a right of private defence of property and person The Learned Magistrate was also influenced by the fact that the N.A's complained of injuries at the hands of the complainant party and these injuries had not been explained by the prosecution witnesses. Held : The trial Court has not given any clear out finding of the field at the time of the incident and that he had sown his crops there. He mis-directed himself by trying to find out whether the sale-deed Ex. P-1 could serve as a valid conveyance of the sale of field to Chandulal or his wife. Held : The trial Court has not given any clear out finding of the field at the time of the incident and that he had sown his crops there. He mis-directed himself by trying to find out whether the sale-deed Ex. P-1 could serve as a valid conveyance of the sale of field to Chandulal or his wife. In a revision against acquittal the High Court would be slow to interfere at the instance of a private party. The power of the High Court to interfere was discretionary and had to be exercised judiciously. Judicial discretion as pointed out by the S. C. in Akalu Ahir v. Ram Deo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583 was a discretion which was formed by tradition Methodised by analogy and disciplined by system. It Was further pointed out in the same case that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s. 539 Cr.' P.C. is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law and there has consequently been flagrant miscarriage of Justice. It was not open to a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in view of the provisions of section 439 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court could not do this even indirectly by ordering re-trial. In the instant case as an earlier pointed out, the trial Court was clearly mis-directed when it concerned itself in finding out whether or not there had been a sale of the land as vested any title in Chandu Lal. What he was required to see was whether in pursuance of the sale-deed or otherwise Chandulal had been placed in possession of the land and had been cultivating it or whether the land still remained in possession of the venders and it was Chandulal who had gone to the field in ascertain of his right under the sale-deed. 3. A bare reading of the prosecution evidence would show that Chandulal at least would not go with his wife for asserting his right over the field if it was not in his possession, I may here point out that proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started in respect of the field. 3. A bare reading of the prosecution evidence would show that Chandulal at least would not go with his wife for asserting his right over the field if it was not in his possession, I may here point out that proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started in respect of the field. At the time of the trial, the proceedings were going on, the Judgment of the S.D.M. in section 145 proceedings would indicate that the possession was with Chandulal, In any case. I would leave the matter there and remand the case for a fresh trial according to law. 4. It may also be stated here that the trial Court had laid un-necessary emphasis on superficial injuries to the non-applicants. The injuries to the accused person that the prosecution was bound to explain were those which can reasonable be connected with the incident. Obviously, if there were no injuries at the time of the occurrence, the prosecution witnesses were not expected to know about them. It is only if the prosecution witnesses failed to explain such injuries which they were bound to notice that militated against their evidence and render their credibility somewhat doubtful. The learned Magistrate has to bear in mind that it is impossible to get a witness who would not be found false in some minor details. He is to bear in mind that he has to disengage the truth from falsehood and come to its finding about the manner in which the occurrence took place. Another significant fact in this case is that even if the other non-applicants pleaded that the sale-deed Ex. P-l, did not serve to convey title to Surjubai, as they had not been a party to the sale deed. Hemraj who had actually signed the sale-deed was estopped from challenging the sale made by him. Hemraj in case, could not come out with a plea that he had any title to the land. The question of title here was of little importance. What the Court required to see was as to who was in possession of the land. 5. In the result, the acquittal of the non-applicants Kishorilal, Vinay Prakash, Brijkishore and Hemraj is set aside. The case will now go back for a trial afresh according to law.