JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This revision at the behest of an informant is directed against the order dated 18th June, 1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T. case No. 1 33 of 1995, acquitting the accused-opposite parties 1 to 5 who were facing trial for the offences under Sections 302/ 341 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that No. 27.5.1994 the buffaloes belonging to he deceased Gangadhar Behera, his brother and father damaged the brinjal crop of the accused persons. The deceased Gangadhar as tending the buffaloes. The accused persons got annoyed and forcibly took the buffaloes and Gangadhar to Kainjori Gadia, i.e. the tank of village Amantia, and all the accused persons dealt lathi blows on the deceased-Gangadhar. Accused Babuli Nayak specifically dealt a bamboo lathi blow on the head of the deceased whereafter, he fell down. The accused- Sarat and Baidhar lifted Gangadhar and dipped him inside the tank. The occurrence was witnessed by Naba Kishore Behera (P.W.). the brother of the deceased, who came to that place carrying meal for the deceased. As the accused persons threatened to assault P.W. 5, he went away from the spot and informed the matter to the villagers. When Naba Kishore came back to the spot along with other witnesses, the accused persons were found leaving the tank and the deceased was found dead. 3. The plea of the defence was one of denial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to bring home the charges. None was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge ultimately,found that there was no satisfactory evidence that the death was homicidal and extending the benefit of doubt held the accused persons not quality of the offences stated above and acquitted them u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that in this case the investigating officer and the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, have not been examined. The aforesaid plea was taken before the trial Court. 7. 6. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that in this case the investigating officer and the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, have not been examined. The aforesaid plea was taken before the trial Court. 7. The limited questions that arise for consideration are whether the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the opposite parties of the charges under Sections 302, 341, read with Section 34, I.P.C. on valid and legal grounds and whether the non-examination of the I.O. or the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was fatal to the case of the prosecution and whether the trial Court has taken due steps for the procuring the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses. 8. The post-mortem report reveals the following injuries. I. Incised wound - 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the anterior aspect of the scrotum was lateral to the midline on the right side with a clear cut margin, which pierces the right side testis is with a line or abrasion above it of in length. 2. Incised Wound - 1" x whit X 1/2" on the interior aspect of the left side scrotum WI lateral to the midline which pierces the left side testis with a linear abrasion of in length on it. The abrasions above the testis are reddish and gaping present over the above scrotal injuries. The injuries are ante mortem in nature. The opinion as to the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage. 9. I am aware of the limitation of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a case filed by the informant against the order of acquittal. It will not be proper on the part of this Court to deal with the evidence in such detail which will amount to loading of the dice against the accused which might prove difficult for the learned Sessions Judge dealing with the matter in case it goes back to rerial. (See Logendra Nath Jha and Others Vs. Shri Polailal Biswas, to. Learned Sessions Judge has discarded the evidence of P.W. 6, Sudam Behera on the ground that 164 statement had been recorded at a belated stage which, in my view, is not a correct approach. It appears from the order-sheet dated 4.6.1996 that the learned trial Judge dispensed with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. Learned Sessions Judge has discarded the evidence of P.W. 6, Sudam Behera on the ground that 164 statement had been recorded at a belated stage which, in my view, is not a correct approach. It appears from the order-sheet dated 4.6.1996 that the learned trial Judge dispensed with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. The reason so ascribed by the trial Judge for dispensing with their evidence is that since all possible steps had been taken to secure their attendance, it was no use adjourning this Sessions case for their evidence, the incident of which took place more than 2 years back and closed the evidence from the side of the prosecution. Learned Trial Judge conveniently gave a go-bye to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Le., Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the procedure for securing the attendance of any person, Le., issuance of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to summons. Learned trial Court, as it appears from the order dated 4.6.1996, has not taken any coercive measure for securing the attendance of the two witnesses, i.e., the I.O. and the Medical Officer, in such a heinous crime, In this case where there is allegation of murder, it was not expected from the learned Sessions Judge to close the case of the prosecution without making any sincere effort to secure the attendance of the vital witnesses. In this case the role of the Public Prosecutor also does not go unblemished. 10. Nothing indicates that he has made any sincere effort for production of the above witnesses. That apart, in the last part of para 6, the learned Sessions Judge has observed as follows: x x x During cross-examination of these P. Ws. suggestions as to the material omissions in their statements u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure had been given though denied by these witnesses. Since the Investigating officer has not come to the box and since the prosecution did not object to these suggestions put by the defence, the same cannot be accepted as correct. x x x 11. Similarly, in the said paragraph, it has been further observed thus "x x x It is true that suggestion as to his non-examination by police had been denied by this witness. x x x 11. Similarly, in the said paragraph, it has been further observed thus "x x x It is true that suggestion as to his non-examination by police had been denied by this witness. The fact, however, remains that the charge sheet does not reveal the name of this witness. Even the prosecution did not object when such suggestion as to his non-examination was put during cross-examination. Hence, in the absence of the evidence of the I.O., the suggestion of the defence as to his non-examination by the I.O. during investigation can be accepted as true. x x x". 12. Non-examination of the I.O. and the Medical Officer and the analysis so made by the trial Court while recording an order of acquittal can safely be construed as manifest error on the point of law. In this regard, reliance was placed on (1993) 6 O.C.R. 253 (Suguda Majhi v.State). In another decision reported in 77 (1994) C.L.T. 953 (Ashok Kumar Jena and Anr. v. State of Orissa) this Court held as follows: x x x Evidence of Investigating Officer assumes its significance when definite question is put to witness about his statement before the Investigating Officer, and any departure made while deposing in Court. Unless prejudice is established by the accused, non-examination of the investigating officer cannot make the prosecution version vulnerable. x x x 13. Here is a case where the analysis so made by the learned trial Court has definitely caused prejudice to the informant. So far as non?examination of the doctor is concerned, learned trial Court relying upon the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Sixth Edition) by HWV COX substituted his opinion as that of the doctor. In the case of Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat it was held that the doctor, who had examined the deceased and conducted the post-mortem examination, was the only competent witness to speak about the nature of injuries and the cause of death. Unless there is something inherently defective, the Court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the doctor. In may view, the trial Court has to be faulted with for not taking steps for securing the attendance of the doctor which he argued to have done in law and committed a mistake by substituting his opinion to the opinion of the doctor. 14. In may view, the trial Court has to be faulted with for not taking steps for securing the attendance of the doctor which he argued to have done in law and committed a mistake by substituting his opinion to the opinion of the doctor. 14. Learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 5 submits that since this revision is at the behest of the informant and as the State has not thought it proper to prefer an appeal which will unnecessarily cause prejudice to the accused persons, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. In this regard, I may refer to K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it has been held that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of a private party though the State may not have thought it fit to appeal. This jurisdiction should be exercised by this Court in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law and consequently there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice. This is a case where due to non-examination of material witnesses, there is flagrant miscarriage of justice. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and the order of the learned Sessions Judge are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge for retrial without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. 16. Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Final Result : Allowed