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. 133 of 1995, acquitting the accused-opposite parties 1 to 5 who were facing trial for the offences under Sec. 302/341 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.5.1994 the buffaloes belonging to the deceased Gangadhar Behera, his brother and father damaged the brinjal crop of the accused per¬sons. The deceased Gangadhar was 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. Then accused-Sarat and Baidhar lifted Gangadhar and dipped him inside the tank. The occurrence was witnessed by Naba Kishore Behera (P.W.5), 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 leav¬ing 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 de¬fence. 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 guilty of the offences stated above and acquitted them under Sec. 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 doc¬tor, 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 of consideration are whether the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the opposite parties of the charges under Secs. The aforesaid plea was taken before the trial Court. 7. The limited questions that arise of consideration are whether the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the opposite parties of the charges under Secs. 302, 341 read with Sec. 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 has taken due steps for the procuring the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses. 8. The post mortem report reveals the following injuries : 1. Incised wound - 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the anterior aspect of the scrotom 1/2" lateral to the Midline on the right side with a clear cut margin, which pierces the Rt. side testis with a lineor abrasion above it of 1/2" in length. 2. Incised wound - 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the interior aspect of the left side scrotom 1/2" lateral to the midline which pierces the left side Testis with a linear abrasion of 1/2" in length on it. The abrasions above the testies are reddish and gaping present over the above sorotal 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 exercis¬ing 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 retrial. [See AIR 1951 S.C. 316 (Logendranath Jha and others v. Shri Polai Lal Biswas)]. 10. 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 Investi¬gating Officer and the Medical Officer. 10. 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 Investi¬gating 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, i.e., Sec. 87 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure for securing the attendance of any person, i.e., 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 that attendance of the vital witnesses. In this case the role of the Public Prosecutor also does not go unblem¬ished. 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 under Sec. 161, Cr.P.c. 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 de¬fence, 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 x It is true that suggestions 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. x x x” 11. Similarly in the said paragraph, it has been further observed thus : “x x x x It is true that suggestions 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 exami¬nation. 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. xxx” 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 OCR 253 (Suguda Majhi v. State). In another decision reported in 77 (1994) CLT 953 (Ashok Kumar Jena and another v. State of Orissa) this Court held as follows : “x x x Evidence of Investigating Officer assumes its signif¬icance when definite question is put to witness about his state¬ment 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 v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 3710, 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 my view, the trial Court has 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. Unless there is something inherently defective, the Court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the doctor. In my view, the trial Court has 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 AIR 1962 SC 1788 (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. 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 manifest error on point of law and consequently there has been flagrant miscar¬riage 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 obser¬vation made by this Court. 16. Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately. Revision dismissed.