Judgment 1. Prosecution witness No.1 in S.C.No.93 of 1995 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of acquittal dated 30.8.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.2 is selling illicit arrack at Pozhiyur. For the purpose of consumption of illicit liquor, the accused as well as the deceased Vergeese used to come there On 2.2.1992 at about 10.30 p.m. as usual, the accused and deceased came there for the purpose of consuming arrack and after consumption, there was quarrel among themselves, P.W.2 intervened, but, however, the accused, who was in possession of the torch light, assaulted with the same light on the chest, cheek and head of the said Vergeese. P.W.3 also came there and P.W.2 instructed P.W.3 to take the said Vergeese to his home. The injured also accompanied by P.W.3 and proceeded to a distance of about 10 feet. Subsequently, Vergeese left the place, saying that he wants to attend the calls of nature. P.W.3 was also standing at a distance, The accused followed them and later P.W.2 also went in that way and she heard the alarm of Vergeese. P.Ws.2 and 3 requested the accused, not to kill the said Vergeese. Thereupon, the accused even threatened P.Ws.2 and 3 not to tell about this incident. P.Ws.2 and 3 went to their houses out of fear. 3. On 3.2.1992 at about 4.30 p.m., the body of Vergeese was found in the sea-shore, P.W.1 the sister of the deceased, on coming to know about this, went there and identified. Since there is suspicion about the death of Vergeese, she went to Koolankode police station and gave a complaint at about 6.00 p.m., on 3.2.1992 under Ex.P-1. P.W.7 Head Constale received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.56 of 1992 as suspicious death. Ex.P-6 is the printed first information report. 4. P.W.9 Inspector of Police, after getting information went to the place of offence, prepared rough sketch Ex.P-10 and also observation mahazar Ex.P-2. He also conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars. Ex.P-11 is, the inquest report. He sent the body to Kuzhithurai Government Hospital for the purpose of Post Mortem. 4. P.W.9 Inspector of Police, after getting information went to the place of offence, prepared rough sketch Ex.P-10 and also observation mahazar Ex.P-2. He also conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars. Ex.P-11 is, the inquest report. He sent the body to Kuzhithurai Government Hospital for the purpose of Post Mortem. P.W.8 Doctor conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and noticed about five external injuries and gave a report that the deceased might have died due to asphyxia. Ex.P-8 is the postmortem report and Ex.P-9 is his final report. He further stated that injuries 1 to 4 are possible by an assault with the battery light and injury No.5 is possible by the bite of fish. P.W.10 Panneer Selvam, Inspector of Police, after getting the medical certificate, altered the section of law into one under Sec.302, I.P.C. He also arrested the accused on 24.2.1992 at about 5.30 p.m., at Medavakkam in the presence of P.W.4 and recorded his confession statement. The accused also produced M.O.1 torch light and it was recovered under Mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by the witness. P.W.11 Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in the case and he examined the medical officer and also other witnesses. After completing investigation, he laid a charge under Sec.302, I.P.C. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked and M.O.1 was produced. No witness was examined and no documents were marked on the side of the defence. The trial court found the accused not guilty under Secs.302, 201 and 506(ii) and acquitted him and aggrieved against this, P.W.1 has come forward with the present revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below was not justified in passing an order of acquittal. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 has not been properly appreciated. P.W.8, the doctor categorically stated that the death of the victim was due to suffocation. The entire approach made by the court below is not proper. The non-examination of the wife and brother is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the case is only resting upon circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are not actual witnesses to the offence and they speak about the earlier part of the incident. The non-examination of the wife and brother is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the case is only resting upon circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are not actual witnesses to the offence and they speak about the earlier part of the incident. They did not speak about the manner in which the death was caused and also whether the body was thrown into the sea. Under the circumstance, this being a revision, there is no glaring illegality and no interference is called for. 8. The point that arise for consideration is whether there are any valid and sufficient cause to interfere in the finding given by the trial court. 9. Point:On 2.2.1992 at about 10.30 p.m. the accused and deceased came there as usual to the place of P.W.2 for the purpose of consuming illicit arrack. After consuming arrack, there was quarrel between the two. P.W.2 intervened but at the same time, the accused, who is in possession of the torch light, assaulted the deceased on the chest, cheek and head. When P.W.3 came there, P.W.2 informed him to take the said Vergeese to his home. The said Vergeese left the place along with P.W.3 and after proceeding a distance of 10 feet, Vergeese left the place, saying that he wants to attend the calls of natural and, as such P.W.3 was said to be standing. It is stated mat the accused followed them and thereafter P.W.2 also came behind and they heard the alarm of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 requested the accused not to kill him and the accuse in turn, threatened them and, as such, they left for home out of fear. 10. P.W. 1 is none other than the sister of the deceased and on coming to know that the body of the Vergeese was found in the sea-shore, she have a complaint with the police at 4.30 p.m. on 3.2.1992. The case was registered as one of suspicious death and after getting the post moretem report, the section of law was altered into one under Sec.302, I.P.C. since the doctor gave a certificate that the death was due to asphyxia. The case was registered as one of suspicious death and after getting the post moretem report, the section of law was altered into one under Sec.302, I.P.C. since the doctor gave a certificate that the death was due to asphyxia. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and it is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused alone had caused hurt on the deceased and because of this, he alone should have been responsible for the murder. There is no direct evidence in this case, The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 only indicated that the accused assaulted the said Vergeese with the help of battery light. It is necessary to state that if the doctor had opined that the deceased died due to these injuries. Then the accused can be found guilty. On the other hand, the opinion of the doctor is to the effect that the death was due to suffocation, but there is no evidence as to how and by whom, it was caused. By 10.30 p.m. on 2.2.1992, P.Ws.2 and 3 went for their home and they have not informed the family members of the deceased. Even on the next day, no information was given to them although P.W.I was searching for her brother. The conduct of P.Ws.2 and 3 only created suspicion as to whether they could be witnesses seen to the earlier occurrence. Even assuming that P.Ws.2 and 3 had seen the earlier occurrence, mere is no other evidence to show relating to the death of Vergeese. 11. It is admitted that the deceased is a fisherman by profession and, as such, with the injuries already sustained by him, on the next day, he could have gone for fishing in the sea also. Even before that, he was addicted to drink and there is a possibility for his falling into the sea water and as a result of suffocation also, he would have died. The possibility of such an occurrence cannot be rules out under these circumstances. P.W.3 also did not state the month and time in which the occurrence took place, thereby indicating that he appears to be a planted witness for this case. The possibility of such an occurrence cannot be rules out under these circumstances. P.W.3 also did not state the month and time in which the occurrence took place, thereby indicating that he appears to be a planted witness for this case. If really the accused had also followed the said Vergeese and caused his death, naturally, P.Ws.2 and 3 would not have failed to mention the same to anyone of their relations or to the family members of the deceased. Now, considering the fact that the body of Vergeese was found in sea-shore, it has been connected to the earlier incident and the accused has been implicated in the case. Even according to the doctor, injury No.5 is possible due to the bite of the fish. The learned counsel for the first respondent contend that this being a revision, unless mere is glaring illegality or the finding is perverse, this Court cannot interfere in the finding. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others , 1997 S.C.C. 870 wherein it is stated that though it was open to the High Court to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of the private parties the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there was some glaring defect in the procedure or there was a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there had been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Now the present revision has been filed by a private party and not by the State. Under the circumstances, it has also been held in Kishan Saroop v. Government of Delhi Kishan Saroop v. Government of Delhi, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 990 thatthe revisional power of the High Court while sitting in judgment over an order of acquittal shall not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment or order of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the trial court has considered the case on the available evidence and rightly decided that the charges were not proved. It cannot be said that the finding is perverse and, hence, no interference is called for. 12. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the trial court has considered the case on the available evidence and rightly decided that the charges were not proved. It cannot be said that the finding is perverse and, hence, no interference is called for. 12. For the reasons stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed.