JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This Criminal Revision Application is filed by the petitioner/original complainant, being aggrieved by the order dated 7th December, 1992 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, acquitting all the accused in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 10 of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 read with 302, 307 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.I have heard all the Advocates at length. At the outset, it has to be stated that the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, and it is also to be highlighted that since this is a Revision Application against the order of acquittal under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it has got its own limitations. 3.The few facts which are required to be stated are as follows: The prosecution story as is transpired from the proceedings in brief is that, deceased Shankar Ranu Gite was the resident of village Taloshi. The prosecution witnesses also were residents of the same village. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and accused Nos. 8 and 10 were residents of village Taloshi. However, accused No. 7 was residing at Talogh, and accused No. 9 was residing at village Avachitwadi. All these villages are in District Nasik. According to the prosecution, there were two rival groups at village Taloshi. Accused belonged to one group, while some of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant belonged to the other group. It is alleged that there is some political rivalry between these two groups over Gram Panchayat Election. 4.As per the prosecution story, on 18th October, 1990, on Laxmipujan day of Deepawali, Bhajan programme was to be arranged at the house of the complainant Tukaram Gite. Deceased Shankar Gite, prosecution witness Suresh, Manohar and Gangadhar left for Taloshi village at about 8 O' clock in the night for going to village Talogh for bringing the Bhajan Mandali. It was alleged that Shankar, Suresh, Manohar and Gangdhar could not get the Bhajan Mandali and therefore they left the village Talogh and were returning to village Taloshi. Thereafter, they reached near Kandalwadi Pathar and a group of about 10 to 12 persons restrained them and assaulted Shankar, who subsequently expired, while Suresh and Manohar were injured. It was alleged that Shankar, Suresh, Manohar and Gangdhar could not get the Bhajan Mandali and therefore they left the village Talogh and were returning to village Taloshi. Thereafter, they reached near Kandalwadi Pathar and a group of about 10 to 12 persons restrained them and assaulted Shankar, who subsequently expired, while Suresh and Manohar were injured. The assaults were made with sword, axe, sticks etc. Suresh and Manohar reached the house of complainant Tukaram at about 10.30 p.m. They were in injured condition. They started shouting that they were assaulted by some people. Gangadhar fled from the spot of incident to save his life. Complainant Tukaram, who was the brother of deceased Shankar, brought Manohar and Suresh to Igatpuri Police Station, and lodged F.I.R. on 19th October, 1990 at 5.40 a.m. His report was reduced into writing. Crime was registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 341 of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 354 of 1990. 5.The accused were arrested on the very next day. There was no identification parade. After completing investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Igatpuri, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against all the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After recording evidence, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, by his judgment and order dated 7th December, 1992 came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and acquitted all the accused. As already stated, State has not filed any appeal against the said order of acquittal, however, brother of the deceased Shankar has filed the present Revision Application against the order of acquittal. 6.Ms. Aniketa Aher, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no proper appreciation of evidence by the lower Court as far as eye-witnesses are concerned. 7.I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. In my opinion, the lower Court has properly dealt with the evidence of all the witnesses. The witnesses turned hostile. It is not that just because the witnesses turned hostile, their evidence has to be discarded altogether, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence, keeping this principle in mind. I do not find any perversity in the reasoning given by the lower Court. The witnesses turned hostile. It is not that just because the witnesses turned hostile, their evidence has to be discarded altogether, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence, keeping this principle in mind. I do not find any perversity in the reasoning given by the lower Court. It is not that he has arrived at the conclusion of acquitting the accused ignoring the material on record or that, he has arrived at the said finding on some extraneous material. 8.It is a settled law that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by private complainant against the order of acquittal, ought not to be exercised lightly and that, it can be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference to do away a manifest illegality or for preventing gross miscarriage of justice. In my opinion, this is no such an exceptional case, where there is any glaring defect in procedure or any public interest is involved. There is nothing to shock the conscious of this Court to warrant any interference with the finding of the lower Court. Hence, the following order: Criminal Revision Application No. 72 of 1993 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Application dismissed. -----