Judgment 1. The prosecution witness No.1 viz., Kasturi filed a revision against the judgment dated 19.10.1987 in S.C.No.112 of 1987 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram acquitting the 1st respondent/accused for the offences under Secs.394, 341 and 307, I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused and P.W.1 are residents of Alambadi Village and the house of the accused is situate west of the house of P.W.I. Some four months prior to this occurrence, there was exchange of words between the wife of the accused and P.W.1. Because of this, the accused found fault with his wife and abused her and as a result of which, she consumed pesticide and ultimately she died. The accused felt that because of P.W.1 only, he lost his wife. On 7.7.1985 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.I was proceeding from the house of one Kuppusamy after taking water in a vessel. By that time, the accused followed her and abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with a spade. P.W.1 fell down in a channel and she sustained injuries. P.Ws.2 and 3 were witnessing the incident from 25 yards and they intervened and snatched the spade from the accused. They also took P.W. 1 to her house and later she went to the police station and gave a complaint under Ex.P-1 and she was sent for medical examination also. P.W.4 Dr.Gnanam examined P.W.1 and issued the wound certificate Ex.P-2. Ex.P-3 is the true copy of Ex.P-2. P.Ws.5 and 6 are Sub.Inspectors of Police and after completing investigation, they laid a charge sheet against the accused. M.Os. 1 and 2 were also recovered under a mahazar Ex.P-6. The trial court found the accused not guilty and passed an order of acquittal and aggrieved against this, P.W.1 has come forward with the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused. Minor contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 has been unnecessarily given much importance. There is nothing to show why the evidence of P.W.1 should be disbelieved. The rejection of the entire evidence is arbitrary. However, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond any doubt and the trial court has given valid and cogent reason and no interference is called for. 4. There is nothing to show why the evidence of P.W.1 should be disbelieved. The rejection of the entire evidence is arbitrary. However, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond any doubt and the trial court has given valid and cogent reason and no interference is called for. 4. The point for consideration is whether there are any valid and sufficient cause to interfere in the finding of the trial court. 5. Point:It is admitted that P.W.1 and the accused are not in cordial terms. Some four months prior to 7.7.1985, there was exchange of words between P.W.1 and the wife of the accused. The accused found fault with his wife and abused her and for which, she consumed pesticide and lost here life. The accused had an impression that because of P.W.1 only, his wife died. On 7.7.1985 at about 9.00 a.m. when P.W.1 was taking water from the house of one Kuppusamy and proceeding in the road, she was prevented by the accused and used abusive language and also assaulted with the spade. P. Ws.2 and 3 intervened and seized the spade. Thereafter P.W.1 was taken home and later she gave a complaint Ex.P-1 and sent to the hospital wherein P.W.4 examined her and issued the wound certificate under Ex.P-2. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no reason to discredit the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is an injured witness and there is no reason to reject the same. There is conflicting version in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 relating to the over act of the accused. When once there is enmity between P.W.1 and the accused naturally the evidence of P.W. 1 has to be scrutinised with due care and caution. Moreover, the injury sustained by P.W.1 is also possible by falling into the channel. P.W.1 had sustained only lacerated injury and if really the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution had taken place, naturally P.W.1 would have sustained more severe injuries. The discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 had been clearly pointed by the trial court in para 6 of the judgment. There is also variation between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. The discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 had been clearly pointed by the trial court in para 6 of the judgment. There is also variation between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. According to the doctor, if a person is assaulted with a spade, then it would cause only cut injuries and there is no possibility of sustaining lacerated injury. On this ground also, enough doubt has been raised even with reference to the evidence of P.W.1. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and the finding is not preserve. 7. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that this being a revision unless there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice, no interference is called for. he relied on the decision in Ramu v. Jagannath Ramu v. Jagannath , 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 181 wherein it is observed that it is a well-settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it has been invoked by a private complaint. He also relied on the decision in Bansilal and others v. Laxman Singh Bansilal and others v. Laxman Singh, 1986 S.C.C. (Crl.) 342 wherein it is stated that unless view of the trial court is illegal or perverse, High Court cannot interfere with that view merely because it prefers a different view. Applying these decisions, it can be concluded that there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice and, hence, no interference is called for. 8. For the reasons stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed.