K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition has been filed by the complainant Nabaghana Kar alias Ghanshyam Kar against the acquittal of the opposite parties 1 to 12 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagatsinghpur on 6/2/1992 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts under Sections 147, 148, 324, 325 and 149, I. P. C. in C. R. Case No. 845 of 1980. On the report of the application, a case against opposite parties 1 to 12 was registered by the police and charge-sheet was filed against them as aforesaid. ( 2 ) THE incidence is of 9/8/1980. Early morning at about 6 a. m. when, according to the prosecution, P. W. 9 Bhagaban Kar was going to case in the out-skirt of his village Kirzapur, the accused persons who were hiding themselves in bamboo as clumps emerged out armed with deadly weapons like tonta, bhala, lathis, bow and arrows and assaulted P. W. 9 Bhagaban Kar. Apprehending danger to his life, he made hulla. Hearing the same, P. W. 6 Bhurba Kar rushed to the spot being followed by P. W. 8 Shantilata Kar and others. According to them, P. W. 5 Bhagaban Kar lodged a report in the police station (Ext. 2) and police sent them to the hospital where they were examined by the doctor Bhuban Mohan Khandanga (P. W. 11 ). The matter was investigated by P. W. 12 Narendra Prasad Singh. ( 3 ) THE State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the opposite parties. ( 4 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Magistrate has read the evidence wrongly and as such, he has arrived at a wrong conclusion in acquitting the accused persons. According to him, the case of the prosecution has been fully proved. The judgment of the lower court is liable to be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court for re-writing the judgment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused persons submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses and the place of incident and also initiation of the incident. The judgment of the lower court is liable to be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court for re-writing the judgment. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused persons submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses and the place of incident and also initiation of the incident. In fact it is the petitioner who had attacked the accused persons while they were removing paddy from their field and the opposite party-accused persons received injuries for which the petitioner was alongwith others. His further submission is that in the revision petition by a private person in a case when the State has not chosen to file any appeal, power of this High Court is very much limited to interfere with the order of acquittal unless a glaring came is made out by the applicant which is not a fact in this case. Moreover, the incident being of the year 1980, about 14 years have passed and it will not be justiceable to remand a case for re-writing the judgment by the trial Magistrate. The learned counsel has relied on the principle laid down by the apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1 and Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh. ( 6 ) THOUGH it is not necessary to re-assess the evidence on record in a revision petition filed in this Court, but I would like to point out some glaring defects in the prosecution story and the proof which they have put on record which will go to show that the prosecution witnesses are not truthful witnesses and they have been rightly disbelieved. Therefore, the accused persons have been rightly acquitted. Out of the alleged eye-witnesses P. Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, I will only discuss some portion of the evidence of the star witnesses. P. Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are the real brothers. P. W. 10 has not supported them. ( 7 ) THE prosecution story is that P. W. 9 Bhagaban Kat went to answer the call of nature and was first attacked by the accused persons. P. Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are the real brothers. P. W. 10 has not supported them. ( 7 ) THE prosecution story is that P. W. 9 Bhagaban Kat went to answer the call of nature and was first attacked by the accused persons. On his hue and cry, the so-called eye-witnesses reached the spot and P. W. 5, Ghanshyam Kat, P. W. 6 Bhruba Charan Kat also received injuries, P. W. 5 Ghanshyam Kar gives a different version than that of P. W. 9 Bhagaban Kar. In the first paragraph of his examination-in-chief, he says,tij am informant in this case. . . . I was going to attend the call of nature. The accused persons were standing in Mirazpur Chhak which is at a distance of two Jarib from my house. They were holding doubly weapons like arrow, thenga and lath is. They surrounded me and I raised hulla. My younger brother Bhagaban and older brother Dhruba and others arrived there. . . . This fact has been confirmed by him in para-graph 4 of his cross-examination. Then he gives the contradictory statement in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as under:in paragraph 5 he says, We were sent by the police for medical examination at about 11 a. m. to Kanimula P. H. C. We three brothers i. e. I, Bhagaban Kat and Dhruba Kar were sent to Hospital In paragraph 6 he says the contradictory as follows We three brothers at first went to Kanimula P. H. C. The compounder treated my two brothers. I atone went to police station to odge F. I. R. and my other two brothers were at the P. H. C. The F. I. R. was scribed at police station by another person. In paragraph 7 he says,all the accused persons assaulted Bhagaban Kar. After assault on me and Bhruba Kar there was no assault on Bhagaban Kar After Bhagaban and Dhruba became senseless I was assaulted At first Bhagaban was assaulted and thereafter Dhruba, was assaulted. . . . Bhagaban was senseless when Dhruba was assaulted. We have not tried to protest when we were assaulted. . . . All this goes to show that P. W. 5 has stated that first of all he was assaulted and the others reached the spot after hearing his hulla and cry. . . . Bhagaban was senseless when Dhruba was assaulted. We have not tried to protest when we were assaulted. . . . All this goes to show that P. W. 5 has stated that first of all he was assaulted and the others reached the spot after hearing his hulla and cry. But, on the other hand, he says that all the accused person assaulted Bhagaban Kar. He was assaulted only after Bhagaban Kat and Dhruba Kat became senseless. That means, Bhagaban Kat and Dhruba Kar have not witnessed the assault on him (P. W. 5 ). So, their evidence on this point is of no use. Similarly, evidence of Bhagaban who became senseless when Dhruba was assaulted, is of no use to corroborate the evidence. ( 8 ). P. W. 6 Dhruba Kar in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief has stated that the incident took place on 9/8/1990 at 6 a. m. near the Mirzapur crossing while he was sleeping. On hearing the noise, he rushed to the spot alongwith Shantilata Kat wife of Bhagaban Kar and Santilata Kar wife of Ghanshyam Kar where he found Purussotam Kat assaulting Bhagaban Kar on his waist. This goes to show that all of them reached the spot after the assault In paragraph 5 of his cross- exam ination, he has stated Manijanga Dispensary is one K. M. away from the P. S. I did not go to the P. S. My younger brother had been to P. S. Land dispute started between me and the accused persons in the year 1980. We in total 11 persons had been to the spot. I myself, Santilata Kar, Bata Panda, Ghanshyam Rout, Sankar Rout, Kasaba Pradhan, Basudev Jena, Khetrabasi Das, Gangadhar Das and etc. had been to the spot. In paragraph 8, he has stated Nabaghana is my brother, who lodged the F. I. R. After consultion with us he left for police station In paragraph 9, he admits that he and his brothers are accused in a case med by Purusottam Kar. This also goes to show that he must have also reached the spot later alongwith the lady witnesses. ( 9 ). P. W. 8 Shantilata Kar with whom P. W. 6 had accompanied to the spot has stated in paragraph 1 of her examination-in-chief that while Bhagabana Kar was going to attend the call of nature,accused persons surrounded him. This also goes to show that he must have also reached the spot later alongwith the lady witnesses. ( 9 ). P. W. 8 Shantilata Kar with whom P. W. 6 had accompanied to the spot has stated in paragraph 1 of her examination-in-chief that while Bhagabana Kar was going to attend the call of nature,accused persons surrounded him. As a result of which he raised hulla and hearing his hulla, she rushed to the spot alongwith the brother of her husband and wife of Bhagaban. ( 10 ). Now coming to the statement of P. W. 9, in paragraph 1 he has stated, The incident took place about 11 years back at about 6 A. M. at Mirzapur square. On the date of occurrence while I was going to attend the call of nature near the place of occurrence the accused persons being armed with tenta, arrow and Bhala and Thenga suddenly appeared in my front, surrounded me and seeing their presence I raised hulla and hearing my hulla my brother Nabhagan Kar, his wife, Dhruba Karand Santilata Kar came to the spot. . . This goes to show that even Nabhagan Kar alias Ghanshyam Kar (P. W. 5) reached the spot after he was assaulted. In paragraph 2, he has stated After the incident we went to the Kanimula PHC where we medically treated. The police on receipt of the information reached the hospital and sent us to Jagatsinghpur Hospital for our further TI This goes to show another contradiction as to whether they first went to the police station or to the P. R. C. as stated by P. W. 5. According to this witness, all of them had been to the P. H. C. first and it is not clear on whose information police reached the hospital and sent them to the Jagatsinghpur hospital. This creates a doubt regarding the First Information Report (Ext. 2 ). If this is a fact that the police reached the P. H. C. , then the prosecution has not filed the report written at the hospital and the first hand medical evidence is of P. Ws. This creates a doubt regarding the First Information Report (Ext. 2 ). If this is a fact that the police reached the P. H. C. , then the prosecution has not filed the report written at the hospital and the first hand medical evidence is of P. Ws. 5, 6 and 9 to know the nature of injuries found on their persons at the P. H. C. P. W. 12 the Investigating Officer does not say that the police had reached the P. H. C. and from there he injured persons were referred to another hospital where they were examined by the doctor (P. W. 11 ). ( 11 ) THE doctor (P. W. 11) in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination states that there is nothing on record as to whether the patients had been to his hospital being accompanied by any constable. He had also not obtained the signatures of the patients in his report. In paragraph 11, he further states that there is no scrap of paper nor any factum in his report to show that he had referred the patients for X-ray examination. He did not remember if he had furnished X-ray plates alongwith his report to the Officer-in-charge for his reference. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances aforesaid, the nature of injuries and its proof is not properly explained by the doctor. In order to show that there was any fracture, there must have been some X-ray plate or X-ray report The Tact that there were injuries on the persons of the accused has not been explained by the prosecution in this case. In order to show that there was any fracture, there must have been some X-ray plate or X-ray report The Tact that there were injuries on the persons of the accused has not been explained by the prosecution in this case. ( 13 ) IN AIR 1962 SC 1788 (supra), it has been held:it is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction Should in our opinion 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 flagrant miscarriage of justice Relying on this principle, the apex Court in A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1721 (supra) has again reiterated: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 re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. 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 letting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. 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 findings 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. In view of the principles laid down by the apex Court and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case that the parties are already on inimical terms and a period of fourteen years has already elapsed and also there are material contradictions in the prosecution story and in the statement of witnesses, I find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Magistrate though in a different manner. Consequently, there is no force in the revision petition and it is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Consequently, there is no force in the revision petition and it is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .