JUDGMENT 1. - This D.U. Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the complainant Ram Prasad against the accused persons Bapulal and Birdhilal sons of Bala. Nanda son of Heera, resident of village Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar. The 4th accused person Kanhi Ram son of Birdhilal has since died. The complainant petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 10-2-1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 62/93 whereby he had acquitted all the accused persons of the charges for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts as borne out from the judgment are that a report was lodged on 21-12-1992 at 5.45 p.m. by the petitioner Ram Prasad to the effect that he and his uncle Gajanand were returning from their fields and were going to their homes when certain persons, namely Bapulal, Permanand, Bhagirath, Kanhiram, Motilal, Birdhilal, Nandram, Bajrang, Lachhuram, Heeralal, armed with swords and 'gandasi' had surrounded his uncle Gajanand from all sides and killed him. He reported that the dead body was lying in the open place. 3. F.I.R No. 320/92 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, Indian Penal Code was recorded. On 26-12-1992 another application was moved wherein he had mentioned that for the reasons that at the time of moving the earlier report he was upset and submitted that from amongst the persons he had earlier mentioned in the application, Birdhilal, Babulal, Kanhiram and Nandlal were the actual assailants. These persons were arrested. The swords were recovered from the possession of Nanda, Kanhi and Bapulal whereas "Gandasi" was recovered from Birdhilal. The dead body of Gajanand was sent for post-mortem. As per postmortem report the deceased had died because of sharp injuries inflicted on the head and neck. Charge-sheet was submitted on 26-2-1993. 4. The prosecution had produced as many as 20 witnesses and also exhibited as many as 31 documents. The accused had denied the charges in their statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. P.W.1 Mulibai was the wife of the deceased. She has stated that when they were returning being accompanied by her husband Gajanand, her son Ram Prasad and nephew Ram Narain and when they reached in front of high school, four accused persons present in the Court, as identified by her, armed with' swords' and 'gandasi' attacked her husband. 5. P.W.1 Mulibai was the wife of the deceased. She has stated that when they were returning being accompanied by her husband Gajanand, her son Ram Prasad and nephew Ram Narain and when they reached in front of high school, four accused persons present in the Court, as identified by her, armed with' swords' and 'gandasi' attacked her husband. Bapu gave a sword blow on the head of her husband and then all the four persons started giving blows. Her husband died at the spot and the accused persons ran towards the side of liquor shop. Tulsiram, Bhagwan and Radhey Shyam also came at the spot that had actually following them when they were returning from the fields. It was stated by her that earlier her husband was involved in a murder case of the brother of Birdhilal and, therefore, the accused persons were having enmity. She tried to save her husband but everything happened in minutes, her own cloths were drenched in blood. 6. P.W. 2 was Ram Narain who had corroborated the story as given by P.W. 1 naming all the four persons. He has also stated that the first blow was given by Bapu and thereafter all the four persons jumped on the deceased and started giving blows after blows. The deceased had died at the spot. It is also stated that the accused had also threatened that they would give the same treatment to all other persons whosoever cross their way. 7. Tulsiram, Ram Prasad and Bhagwan have been produced as P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. The direct and eye-witness are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who had seen the occurrence. There were as many as 14 incised injuries on the vital parts of the deceased, i.e. on the head, face, neck, shoulders, wrists, palm, and even on legs and lips. 8. The direct and eye-witness are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who had seen the occurrence. There were as many as 14 incised injuries on the vital parts of the deceased, i.e. on the head, face, neck, shoulders, wrists, palm, and even on legs and lips. 8. The Sessions Judge had acquitted all the accused persons mainly on the ground : (1) that the presence of the witnesses at the spot does not seem to be natural for the reason that none of the witness had tried to save the deceased; (2) that the clothes of the witnesses had not been taken into possession by the police; (3) that even though there are 16 incised wounds inflicted on the vital parts of the deceased, but the witnesses have not been able to say as to which accused had given the blow at what place of the body of the deceased; and (4) Bhagwan had only seen the accused persons running away from the place of occurrence and for the reason that none of the witnesses had tried to save the deceased from the accused persons, the benefit of doubt had been awarded to the accused persons by acquitting them. Record was called for. 9. P.W. 1 Mulibai, the wife of the deceased, has stated that she had tried to intervene, but by the time for the injuries inflicted on her husband, her husband had died almost immediately. Motive had also been alleged.P.W. 2 Ram Narain had also stated that Gajanand had immediately fallen down after receiving the blow and that he had rushed to save him. They all had raised noise, however, he cannot remember as to which of the accused had given injuries at which place of the body of the deceased. Tulsiram has stated that all the accused were armed with weapons like swords. He had seen the wife of the deceased crying, but he had deposed that the accused had threatened him that in case he would give any evidence, he would be done away.Ram Prasad had stated that initially he had made a report against 11 persons of the family of the accused persons, but later on had confined his report only to four accused persons. He had also tried to save Gajanand deceased and that his clothes were also drenched in blood, this fact was told to the police.Counsel for the petitioner states that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in acquitting the persons in view of the clear statement given by the eye witnesses cannot be sustained and that the accused have been illegally acquitted.It is the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the manifest injustice has been done to the complainant by acquitting the accused persons and for that purpose relies on Pakalpati Narayan Gajapathi Raju and Anr. v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and Anr. 1975 (lll) Cr.L.R. (SC) 467, wherein it was held that the revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure has been interpreted in several decisions by taking a view that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, ought not to be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.In the case of Kishan Swaroop v. Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 990, it was held by the Supreme Court that in dealing with the revision powers of the High Court vis-a-vis the right of a private party to move in revision against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a police report, it was held that the jurisdiction would be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 10. In the case of Ranbir and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1409, it was held by the Supreme Court that in case of party factions there is generally a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also alongwith the guilty ones. If a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence then it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the rest of the evidence with care and caution. If a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence then it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the rest of the evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. It was also observed that the question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency. It was held that it was essential that the Investigating Officer should be asked specifically about the delay and the reasons therefor. Evidence of a witness does not become untrustworthy merely because he was examined after delay by the Investigating Officer.In the case of Sarwan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2304, it was held by the Supreme Court that Appellate Court should be slow and circumspect to disturb a finding of fact, but if it is of the opinion that the finding of fact is wrong and not borne out by the evidence there is no limitation on its power to interfere with the order of acquittal. 11. In the case of Molu and Others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2499, it was held that various persons react differently In similar circumstances and it is difficult to probe into the minds of the accused as to how they act in a particular way. The fact that the witness did not receive any injury could not be a valid ground for rejecting the entire testimony of the witness. 12. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment in Krishnegowda and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 1 SCC 306 . wherein in a group rivalry case, where large number of assailants and victims were involved, it was held that the conviction can be sustained if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the Incident. We have gone through the evidence on record. 13. It seems that the rulings relied upon before us had not been cited before the Trial Court. We also notice that there is also not detailed discussion of evidence in the judgment of the Trial Court. We have gone through the evidence on record. 13. It seems that the rulings relied upon before us had not been cited before the Trial Court. We also notice that there is also not detailed discussion of evidence in the judgment of the Trial Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the rulings cited before us, we are of the view that the matter should be reconsidered by the Trial Court. 14. Consequently, we allow this revision petition in part, set-aside the judgment impugned and remand the case to the Trial Court with a direction to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 18-10-2000.Revision allowed. Matter remanded. *******