Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of acquittal dated 25th July, 1998 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 344/92 for the offence tinder Sections 148, 379 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Kapinath Singh on 17.10.1990 at Rivilganj Bazar. 2. The facts leading to the case are on 17.10.1990 Kapinath Singh (deceased) gave a written report to the Officer-in-Charge Rivilganj P.S. alleging therein that on the same day he had gone to purchase ox at village India having Rs. 5000/- in cash. He could not purchase ox due to differences in price, as such, he was returning to his village. At about 12.30 p.m. he came to Rivilganj Bazar and entered into Vijay General Stores to purchase readymade garments. It has been stated that Shopkeeper Vijay Prasad was running the shop who demanded excess price. Therefore, he refused to purchase the items. It has been alleged, aforesaid Vijay Prasad hurled abuses and abused him to withdraw from the shop. The informant lodged protest whereupon Vijay Prasad assaulted him on his head by Gupti and consequently he fell down on the ground. Thereafter Kanhaiya Prasad assaulted with lathi on the back, Uday Prasad assaulted with bhujali below the left elbow. Tuntun Prasad with gupti above the left knee, Sanjay Prasad with farsa on the left side of the neck on the person of the informant. Accused Dhrup Prasad snatched Rs. 5000/- out of the pocket of the informant. The informant raised hulla whereupon Abhimanyu Singh. Ramji Singh. Ganga Singh, Idrsh Mian and others arrived there and they witnessed the occurrence. It has been further stated that there was some scuffle with a person of Vijoy Rai Ke Tola and on account of that incident this occurrence had taken place. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners, cognizance was taken and the trial, concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 is Ramjit Singh, P.W. 2 is Rabindra Singh, P.W. 3 is Abhimanyu Singh, P.W. 4 is Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased, Kapinath, P.W. 5 is Dr. Roop Narayan Lal Das and P.W. 6 is the I.O. of this case. 4. The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 is Ramjit Singh, P.W. 2 is Rabindra Singh, P.W. 3 is Abhimanyu Singh, P.W. 4 is Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased, Kapinath, P.W. 5 is Dr. Roop Narayan Lal Das and P.W. 6 is the I.O. of this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has acquitted the persons by disbelieving the testimony of the eyewitnesses without assigning any valid and cogent reason. The trial Court has also wrongly held that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report. It has been further submitted that the Court below has given more weightage to the doctor P.W. 4 who held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased who had no occasion to treat the deceased. As against P.W. 5 Dr. who had treated the deceased at Rivilganj State Dispensary soon after he was injured statement of P.W. 4 has been considered on the flimsy ground that he was more qualified than P.W. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has stated that the fardbeyan was recorded by P.W. 3 but his signature was not available on the First Information Report. One Gautam put his signature on it but he was not examined. He has submitted that the Court below has considered each and every aspect of the matter including the evidence of the witnesses and has discussed the same in detail and rightly acquitted the opposite party giving them benefit of doubt and there is no irregularity il- legality committed by the Court below. It has been also submitted that place of occurrence a busy bazar but not a single independent witness has been examined though many persons were assembled at the time of occurrence. There was no penetrating wound though it was alleged that deceased was assaulted by Gupti. There was incised wound on the person of the injured. According to P.W. 5 it was incised injury and according to P.W. 4 it was lacerated injury. So there is discrepancy in the nature of injuries. 6. In this case FIR was lodged on the basis of written report submitted to the I.O. who reached the place of occurrence as early as 12.30 hours whereas occurrence took place at 12.30 hours. So there is discrepancy in the nature of injuries. 6. In this case FIR was lodged on the basis of written report submitted to the I.O. who reached the place of occurrence as early as 12.30 hours whereas occurrence took place at 12.30 hours. From the evidence of P.W. 3 who is uncle of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was not in a position to write himself. As such on his dictation he wrote a report on which he gave his thumb impression. P.W. 6 the I.O. has stated that he received that written report Ext. I with the thumb impression of the deceased. He further stated that soon after he again recorded the statement of deceased in the Rivilganj Hospital during the course of investigation which has been duly recorded in the case diary. As such the written report as submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party, does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. The Court below in Paragraph 9 of its judgment has rejected Ext. 1 merely on the ground that Gautam Singh whose signature was there on it was not examined in spite of the fact that the statement of the deceased was also recorded by the Police in the hospital when the deceased was alive. That apart the statement recorded by the I.O. contains all the details stated in Ext. 1. As such there is no valid ground to discard the First information Report Ext. 1. In Paragraph 10 of the judgment the Court below has also held that no independent witness has been examined even though the occurrence took place in a busy place and also in the broad day light. It has been also held that P.W. 3 is highly interested witness and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were chance witnesses. It is true that none of the witnesses were examined from Revilganj Bazar. All the three witnesses are eye-witnesses from Bijoy Rai Tola which is the village of the deceased. In Paragraph 23 of the deposition of I.O. P.W. 6. it has been mentioned that no witness from the Bazar was available. As such P.W. 6 could not record their statement during the course of investigation. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been mentioned as chance witnesses, but they are most competent and natural witnesses. In Paragraph 23 of the deposition of I.O. P.W. 6. it has been mentioned that no witness from the Bazar was available. As such P.W. 6 could not record their statement during the course of investigation. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been mentioned as chance witnesses, but they are most competent and natural witnesses. P.W. 1 had gone to Rivilganj Bazar for getting his oil extracted from expeller which was situated on the main road at Rivilganj. P.W. 2 was also coming back after sowing Parwal from a field and had also seen the occurrence. P.W. 3 had his own shop in Rivilganj Market itself. Even though all the three above mentioned witnesses belonged to same village but there is no evidence to show that there was any animosity the deceased and these witnesses were having with the opposite party which may have prompted false implication of opposite parties. Though the defence has put suggestion that there was scuffle and fight between the people of Bijoy Rai Tola but the same was denied. The defence also examined D.W. 1, Doctor who was posted at Chapra Sadar Hospital and had examined Tuntun and also one Omprakash son of Dashrath. D.W. 2 has proved the fardbeyan of opposite party Sanjay Kr. written in the hand-writing of R.K. Pd.. S.I. posted at Bhagwan Bazar and Exts. B and C written by Narendra Prasad. Exts. B and C are admission of occurrence. Since animosity has not been proved between the informant and opposite party. I do not find why Deo Nath Pd. and P.W. 4 will falsely implicate the opposite party. Even if it is accepted that there was scuffle between the villagers of Bijoy Rai Tola and the shopkeepers of Rivilganj and the deceased got injured by brick bats which is not certainly the case of the prosecution. The deposition of the P.W. 5 is clear that the deceased got incised wound injury on his person at the place as mentioned in the First Information Report. The Court below though had disputed the opinion of P.W. 3 and has accepted the opinion of P.W. 4 only on the ground that P.W. 4 was more qualified than P.W. 5 and he was superior in knowledge and experience. 8. The Court below though had disputed the opinion of P.W. 3 and has accepted the opinion of P.W. 4 only on the ground that P.W. 4 was more qualified than P.W. 5 and he was superior in knowledge and experience. 8. In this case this finding about the experience and knowledge of doctor suffers from the basic defect since comparison between experience and knowledge only be done between persons doing similar type of job. In this case P.W. 5 was posted in the hospital as Assistant Civil Surgeon and is expected to have basip knowledge of medicine and surgery and he treats hundred of patients every day whereas P.W. 4 who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body was in a teaching job and has no opportunity to examine and treat the patients. That apart P.W. 5 examined the deceased just after occurrence and his report could be more reliable for determining nature of injuries. As such the comparison between these two doctors is baseless and not reasonable. Though learned counsel has drawn my attention to the limited jurisdiction of revisional Court while considering the petition against acquittal but there is no hard and fast rule that sitting in a revisional jurisdiction the Court should not interfere at all. He has also cited decision of the Apex Court in Aklu Ahir and others V/s. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145 in which it was held that in a revision against acquittal by a private complainant, High Court should not reappraise the evidence in itself as if it was acting as a Court of appeal and then order a retrial. In another decision which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner reported in Bansi Lal and Others V/s. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 SC 1721 : 1986 East Cr C 785, it was held that the High Court should exercise its power in setting aside the order of acquittal sparingly with great care and caution and should order the retrial of acquittal only in a case of glaring defect and miscarriage of justice. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. Even in an appeal the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with a acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. But it is well settled that the High Court has power to set aside an order of acquittal and in its revisional jurisdiction even at the instance of private party in very exceptional cases. The guide lines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 SC 1788 is very clear that : (a) where the trial Court overlooked the material evidence, and (b) where the admissible evidence has been held by trial Court inadmissible. It is also very clear that a finding and order passed over looking material evidence and coming to interference thereof results in miscarriage of justice. Not only that in this case there is no direct nexus between the facts and conclusion drawn by the Court below. In such cases interference by the Court in its revisional jurisdiction becomes necessary. In this case evidence of P.Ws. 1 2 and 3 who are eyewitnesses has been rejected doubting their presence by treating them as chance witnesses and also forming them as interested witnesses whereas no animosity has been proved or even suggestion was put forth that they were in any way interested witnesses to get the opposite party falsely implicated. Even available piece of evidence that is the written report Ext. 1 was rejected observing that it has not been legally proved, though Investigating Officer P.W. 6 and P.W. 3 had proved it. That apart Investigating Officer in Paragraph 2 of his depositing has stated that he has recorded the statement of the deceased in the hospital and it tallies with the written report Ext. 1. 1 was rejected observing that it has not been legally proved, though Investigating Officer P.W. 6 and P.W. 3 had proved it. That apart Investigating Officer in Paragraph 2 of his depositing has stated that he has recorded the statement of the deceased in the hospital and it tallies with the written report Ext. 1. It is also apparent that P.W. 5 was the first doctor who got the injured examined at Rivilganj Hospital thereafter injured was referred to PMCH where he was treated for couple of days and he died. The doctor had treated the injured at PMCH was not examined as such, the evidence of P.W. 5 becomes authentic evidence on the point of injury on the person of the deceased. The Court below has given every weightage to the opinion of P.W. 4 the doctor regarding the injuries found on the person of the deceased in preference to the opinion of P.W. 5 and rejected the case of the prosecution. The injury report issued by P.W. 5 and injury memo prepared by P.W. 6 the I.O. are in conformity with each other itself and goes to establish the authenticity of the injuries. But more reliance was placed on ante mortem injures found by doctor holding postmortem examination days after the occurrence. The nature and look of the injuries might have been changed by that time (time of post mortem examination) or the doctor might have overlooked some of the aspect of the injuries. In view of discussions above I am of the opinion that the Court below has not evaluated the evidence in proper perspective and there is no nexus between the evidence adduced and conclusion arrived at by the Court below. Accordingly the judgment and order passed by the Court below are set aside and this revision petition is allowed. The case is re-mitted for fresh appraisal of evidence already on record and to re-Write fresh judgment after hearing the parties in accordance with law.