Judgment : The accused was convicted by the trial court but in the appeal he was acquitted. As against that acquittal a private party viz., the complainant has preferred this criminal revision case. 2. The accused stood charged under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution is as follows: The accused V.P. Lakshmanasamy was residing in Door No. 30, Kannaiyan Street, Karungalpalayam. On the eastern side of it there was a land bearing Door Nos. 27, 28 and 29. In respect of this land there was a dispute between the accused and Lakshmanan, the complainant. The complainant Lakshmanan obtained an order of injunction from court against the accused restraining him from disturbing his possession of the said land and he also obtained police protection. The complainant began construction a shed there and a compound wall around it. On 212. 1986 at about 8.50 a.m. while the complainant was watching the progress of the said construction work the accused from his house fired at him four rounds with 0.22 riffle. While three pellets passed above his head and hit at the leaf of a palmyrah tree behind, the fourth pellat struct at his left hand and pierced through it. At that time among other workers there was P.W.2 Arumugham, and P.W.3 and 4 police constables. P. W.3 took the injured to karungalpalayam Police Station which was half-a-furlong away. The complainant gave a complaint Ex.P.1 and the Sub Inspector P.W.11 registered it at 9.00 a.m. The Sub Inspector sent the injured complainant to Erode Government Hospital for treatment.P.W. 5 Dr. Ayyavo, at 9.40 a.m. examined the injured and found in his left arm just above the elbow joint a gun shot entry would of 1/2 x 1/2 cm. and exit would of 3/4 x 3/4 cm. At 9.45 a.m. the Inspector P.W. 14 took up investigation of the case and went to the house of the accused at 10.15 a.m. and there in front of the house he arrested the accused, the then he made a search of the house. In the first floor eastern room and below the eastern window he found 63 live pellets and 4 used pellets and a telescope (M.O. 13) and seized them. He prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-10. He caused photographs to be taken of the house of the accused from different angles. In the first floor eastern room and below the eastern window he found 63 live pellets and 4 used pellets and a telescope (M.O. 13) and seized them. He prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-10. He caused photographs to be taken of the house of the accused from different angles. At 1.15 p.m. from the land of the complainant he recovered 3 used pellets. On 1. 1987 on information the Inspector went to the field of the accused in Periyar Agraharam and there from inside a bay rick he recovered M.O. 10 double barrel gun. He sent the recovered pellets and the gun to the ballistic expert and obtained his opinion. On completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and Sec.27 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. As stated above, on appreciation of the evidence the trial court found the accused guilty of both the charges and accordingly he convicted him, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks under Sec. 307, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and 3 months under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, sentences to run concurrently. These convictions sentences were set aside by the appellate court and the accused was acquitted. 4. Now in the revision it is argued that the appellate court has not given acceptable reason for setting aside the well considered judgment of the trial court, and the appellate court has disregarding the evidence, on conjunctures and surmises, held that the accused is not guilty. 5. 4. Now in the revision it is argued that the appellate court has not given acceptable reason for setting aside the well considered judgment of the trial court, and the appellate court has disregarding the evidence, on conjunctures and surmises, held that the accused is not guilty. 5. The position of law as regards the power of this Court in a revision against acquittal has been laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments in Akalu Ahir and others v. Romdeo Ram, 1973 Crl.L.J. 1404, the Supreme Court has held that, “It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some-violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court in the course of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the re-trial of the acquitted accused persons.” In the same judgment the Supreme Court has stated that on revision by a private complainant the High Court is not entitled to re-appraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a court of appeal and then order a retrial. In Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathy Raju and others v. Bonapatti Peda Appudu and another, 1975 Crl.L.J. 1646: A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1854, it is laid down by the Supreme Court after referring to some of its earlier judgments that, ‘It is clear from these decisions that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly.‘ 6. We will now consider the submissions of the revision petitioner/complainant in the said background of law. The main reason for the appellant court to come to the conclusion that it has not been satisfactorily proved that the accused was the culprit is that there is indication in the prosecution case that the fire came from the window in the first floor of the house of the accused but during trial the witnesses spoke that the accused shot from the open terrace of the house, and the place has been shifted purposely because if it is said that the shot was from the window in the first floor there is possibility of 20 identification of the assailant. According to the revision petitioner this finding of the appellant court is on mere surmises and quite contrary to the evidence. 7. On going through the materials on record I am unable to agree with this submission. According to the revision petitioner this finding of the appellant court is on mere surmises and quite contrary to the evidence. 7. On going through the materials on record I am unable to agree with this submission. In the complaint Ex.P-1 it is stated that the accused went to maadi’ and from the eastern side of it shouting that the complainant would die, he shot at him. It is not in dispute that in the house there is a first floor and then there is an open terrace. The word ‘maadi’ means both the first floor, and also the terrace, but it is argued on behalf of the accused that if it was the open terrace the complainant would have stated ‘Mottai Maadi’. It is admitted that there were no steps to the open terrace from the first floor. None of the witnesses have spoken about any steps. However when the Inspector P.W.14 stated that he went to the terrace to inspect it was asked how he went up and then he stated that he went up by means of an iron ladder. In the terrace he did not find anything. There was absolutely no trace whatsoever that the fire was from there. But he found in the first floor 4 used catridges and 63 live catridges lying on the floor near the eastern window. 8. In the observation mahazar Ex.P-10 P.W.14 Inspector has stated that from where in the ‘maadi’ the accused fired from the 0.22 rifle to the place where the complainant was sitting there was a distance of 28.40 Meters. In the rough sketch Ex.P-18 drawn by the Inspector P.W.14 he has made an indication in dotted lines from the place where the complainant was sitting up to the first floor of the house, and below that he has written ‘28.40 M.’ In the evidence he has stated that to show the distance he drew the dotted line. From these it would clearly appear that the distance from where the complainant was sitting and the open terrace the distance will be more. For the reason of these the learned appellate Judge seem to think that during investigation according to the prosecution the firing was from the first floor and then realising the difficulty in identifying the culprit the scene has been subsequently shifted to the open terrace. 9. For the reason of these the learned appellate Judge seem to think that during investigation according to the prosecution the firing was from the first floor and then realising the difficulty in identifying the culprit the scene has been subsequently shifted to the open terrace. 9. Now, it is the evidence of P.W. 9 Ramakrishnan who has attested the observation mahazar Ex.P-10 that on the eastern side of the house of the accused along the compound wall there are coconut trees of the height of 10-2 feet and there are flower plant of the height of 7-8 feet. The learned appellate Judge has observed that from the photo-graphs M.O.15 series it is found that there are coconut trees on the eastern side of the house of the accused, the leaves of which were covering the window there. Because of this, according to the learned appellate Judge, if the fire had been from the eastern window of the first floor there was no possibility of identifying the assailant. The finding of the learned Judge cannot be said to be wholly wrong. From the facts and circumstances discussed above there was possibility of the firing being from the eastern window. 10. True, besides the complainant P.W.1, P.W.2 Arumugham and also P.Ws.3 and 4 police constables would say in their evidence to the effect that it was the accused who did fire and he did it from the open terrace. As stated above there was bitter enmity between the complainant and the accused and therefore there is nothing unnatural that these witnesses would think that it must be only the accused who is the culprit and therefore they have stated so. 11. Admittedly the son of the accused Guhanatan also was possessing a 0.22 rifle bearing No.38114, and the seized rifle M.O.10 also bears the same number. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused alone was in his house at the relevant time, and the gun has been recovered from the hay-rick in the Open field, and there is no specific evidence as to how the Inspector came to know of it. However it is not the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who showed it. As per the certificate of the Ballistic expert M.O.9 series used pellets found in the field of the complainant were not fired from M.0.10 gun seized. 12. However it is not the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who showed it. As per the certificate of the Ballistic expert M.O.9 series used pellets found in the field of the complainant were not fired from M.0.10 gun seized. 12. In these circumstances, considering the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court regarding this Court’s revisional power especially when the revision petitioner being a private person and the revision is against acquittal, I do not think that it is a case in which the order of acquittal by the appellate court can be interfered with. Therefore the revision petition is dismissed.