L. M. GHOSH, J, J. ( 1 ) 17 accused persons were placed on trial on diverse charges-Sections 148/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and others. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, after scrutiny of the evidence led, acquitted all the accused persons of all the charges. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, the de facto complainant, has challenged the order of acquittal by filing this revisional case. ( 4 ) MR. Dipak Kumar Mukherjee, appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained, because the same is perverse, not being according to the trend of evidence. He has taken us through the various evidences recorded and has summed up that the materials on record make out a clear foundation for conviction. Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, appearing for the Opposite parties 1, 3 to 17, has submitted that the court has taken into consideration the major facts and circumstances and after so doing, he has found the accused not guilty. It has been submitted by Mr. Sengupta that it is a matter for the court below to accept or reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the revisional court has no power to interfere with such finding, unless the finding itself appears perverse. Mr. Pranay Ranjan Adak, has appeared for the State. He has supported the contention of Mr. Sengupta. ( 5 ) IT is well settled now that the revisional court cannot proceed to re-appreciate evidence. Evidence on record may be looked into, and should be looked into, to find out whether the decision of the learned court below is against the trend of the evidence so as to make it perverse. In this case, for the prosecution, 22 witnesses were examined. One witness was examined for the defence. A summing up of the evidence is needed to find out whether the judgment of the court below is contrary to the trend of evidence. P. W. 1 has stated that the accused Patan cought hold of his father and the accused Fan assaulted him (his father) with some sharp cutting weapon. Ultimately, the father of P. W. 1, Jafar Sk. died on the spot as a result of the injury inflicted. P. W. 2 gave the same version. She has stated that when she raised alarm, she was also injured as a result of throwing of missiles. Ultimately, the father of P. W. 1, Jafar Sk. died on the spot as a result of the injury inflicted. P. W. 2 gave the same version. She has stated that when she raised alarm, she was also injured as a result of throwing of missiles. P. W. 3 has given us that Jafar was assaulted on his head, back and hand by Fan, while Patan held him. P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are seizure list witnesses. P. W. 7 was merely tendered. The evidence of P. W. 8 is to the effect that when Jafar was coming after plucking of tamarind, he was caught hold of by Patan and Fan gave a blow with a Kirich. Almost same is the evidence of P. W. 9. P. W. 10 did not see the act of assault, but on hearing shouts, he found Jafar was lying injured. P. W. 11 also did not see the incident, but on going there found that Jafar was lying injured. Such is also the evidence of P. W. 12. P. W. 13 speaks of the incident of assault itself by Fan. P. W. 14 and 15 were merely tendered. P. W. 16 is the doctor who held the post-mortem examination P. W. 17 is another doctor who examined some injuries on some other persons. P. W. 18 only saw that Jafar was lying injured. P. W. 19 is a S. I. of Police and a formal witness. P. W. 20 was tendered. P. W. 21 is another medical officer and he examined one Abdul Kalam P. W. 22 is the 1. 0. The defence has examined only one witness, D. W. 1, who is also a medical officer and examined some injuries on the persons of Amjad Hossain and others. ( 6 ) IT is thus seen that several witnesses have spoken about the incident of assault. The learned court below has rejected the evidence of the eye-witness on several grounds. First, he has observed that the G. D. , which gave the earliest version, was withheld. He has also observed that the injuries on the persons of some of the accused persons have not been explained. The learned court below has rejected the evidence of the eye-witness on several grounds. First, he has observed that the G. D. , which gave the earliest version, was withheld. He has also observed that the injuries on the persons of some of the accused persons have not been explained. Another factor that weighed with the learned court below was that there was no seizure of blood from the spot and one witness could not find any tamarind there, although the prosecution version was that Jafar was proceeding after collecting the tamarind in his bag. ( 7 ) IT appears that these considerations, which weighed with the learned court below, are quite valid. As regards the withholding of the G. D. , I find that the prosecution has not explained that. From the evidence of P. W. 1, it is found that Kajem and Insad informed the Thana about the incident. There was a G. D. entry. That G. D. should have been produced to enable the court to find out what was the near list version. Moreover, Kajem and Insad have not been examined. In fact the G. D. should have been treated as F. I. R. The F. I. R. drawn up, exhibit 4, discloses that the incident was first reported at 16-45 at the P. O. and then at 20-15 hours at the P. S. But from the evidence, we get that the incident took place at about 11. 30 a. m. This delay is also not explained. ( 8 ) THEN, admittedly no blood was seized from the place of occurrence. That has got some importance, because the prosecution has to prove that the incident took place at the time, at the place and in the precise manner, as narrated. There might be some doubt as to the place of occurrence itself, when blood was not seized to fix the spot. Along with that, the evidence of P. W. 11 may be taken into consideration. His version is that when he went to the spot he found that Jafar lying dead and many people standing there. He did not see any plucking of tamarind. That is explicable. But he also adds that he did not see any tamarind on that date. The prosecution version is that Jafar was going away with some tamarind in his bag. He did not see any plucking of tamarind. That is explicable. But he also adds that he did not see any tamarind on that date. The prosecution version is that Jafar was going away with some tamarind in his bag. If the witness did not find any tamarind on the spot, that may cast some doubt about the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. ( 9 ) THEN there is the severe criticism that the injuries on the persons or some of the accused have not been explained. Scrutinising the evidence, it is found that some others were injured. From P. W. 12, the 1. 0. , it ill found that there was a counter case and there were injuries on the side of the accused persons. P. W. 13 has also admitted that he is an accused in a counter case. P. W. 3 bas simply answered that he did not see injuries on Amjad, Fulzan and others P. W. 8 is an accused in the counter case filed by Hamid. In that context, his answer is that he cannot say whether Amjad Bibi, Gopal and others were injured at the same time and at the same place. Although the injuries on others are not accepted, his answer suggests some sort of free fight. P. W. 17 is the Doctor who noticed injuries on persons of Hanesa Bibi, Rustam Ali, Anesuddin, Abul Kalam, Memen Sheikh. Hamid Sheikh, Ayez Sheikh and Fazil Sheikh. None of the injured examined by the Doctor gave the names of the assailants. The evidence of P. W. 2, along with the hesitant answers of some other P. Ws. as to injuries on the persons of the accused, suggest that there was some sort of free fight. ( 10 ) FOR there reasons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not place reliance on the evidence of witnesses examined. The evidence recorded is no doubt to be considered in this light of the enveloping circumstance, which very much invade the very fibre of the prosecution evidence. There was valid reason on the part of the learned Judge for discarding the evidences of the other P. Ws. Whether another view was possible and acceptance of the evidence of P. Ws, could not be ruled out, are not the questions. There was valid reason on the part of the learned Judge for discarding the evidences of the other P. Ws. Whether another view was possible and acceptance of the evidence of P. Ws, could not be ruled out, are not the questions. Even if some other view was possible, the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be called whimsical, fanciful or capricious. Such being the position, this revisional court would not proceed to re-appreciate the evidence and take another view, disturbing the finding of the court below. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against that course. In A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1788, it has been observed that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The same view was expressed in the case reported in A. I. R. 1968 5 C. 707. In a very recent decision, reported in A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1721, it is observed that it is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of the revisional power, it is obvious that it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The Supreme Court has further gone to observe that the mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. As pointed out, even in an appeal the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the finding of fact reached by the trial court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. ( 11 ) THIS is the settled law. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. ( 11 ) THIS is the settled law. The revisional court cannot interfere merely because some other inference on the basis of the same evidence is possible. It has been pointed out that there is no case of flagrant violation of any principle of law and that the view taken by the learned court below cannot be caned whimsical or capricious. Therefore, in this case, no interference is called for. ( 12 ) THE Revisional application is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. Revision dismissed.