Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 21-1-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S. T. No. 193/1992, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges framed under Section 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief as stated that on 20-7-1989 at about 4 p. m. there was some not exchange of word between the petitioner and O. p. No. 2 over the question of removal of creeper which spread up to Balcony of the petitioner where the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 are the resident of the same building. When the opposite party No. 2 could not remove the creeper, there was exchange of abuse and in the meantime the petitioners son Kumud came down and asked the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 as to why such thing happened and the creeper has not been removed. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2, Bindeshwar Prasad Singh @ B. P. Singh along with other accused persons shouted to assault Kumud whereupon the opposite party No. 3 Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Prasad assaulted Kumud with iron rod on his head, as a result of which Kumud sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Bokaro General Hospital, where he was declared dead. ( 3 ) THE witnesses were examined in the Court below and after having heard both sides and considered the evidences on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons/opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Hence, this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted, at the very outset, that the learned Sessions Judge, committed gross error in acquitting the accused persons on mere presumption and flimsy grounds, when there is overwhelming evidence against the accused persons for committing murder of Kumud with iron and rod which also finds support from the medical evidence. It is further submitted that P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses on the point of fatal assault and their evidences have fully been corroborated by the evidence of doctor, P. W. 7, but even then the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the material fact which leads to only conclusion that the accused persons committed murder at the relevant time. 1, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses on the point of fatal assault and their evidences have fully been corroborated by the evidence of doctor, P. W. 7, but even then the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the material fact which leads to only conclusion that the accused persons committed murder at the relevant time. It is also argued that the P. W. 4, the father of the deceased being the informant made some contradiction about the main assailant as set out in the FIR which will only go against P. W. 4, the Informant, the maker of the First Information Report and not against other eye-witnesses, who are consistent and certain about the occurrence. It is also argued that there was enmity between the parties from before which led the occurrence happened in the manner as alleged, as well as the enmity cuts both end. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 contended before me that this Criminal Revision is nto maintainable as Government already filed an appeal which was dismissed and this Criminal Revision has been filed by a private person. It is further argued that the FIR was lodged by the petitioner, the father of the deceased (P. W. 4) in which it was clearly stated that it was B. P. Singh, who caused fatal injury on the head of the deceased by iron rod but later on during the course of trial, the witnesses changed their version and they claimed that it was Anuj Singh who gave the blow of iron rod on the head causing the death of the deceased and such material contradiction makes the whole prosecution case false and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused persons. It is also argued that the accused persons have been falsely dragged in this case out of previous enmity as well as there was no independent witness to substantiate the prosecution case and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the judgment acquitting the accused persons. ( 5 ) AT the very outset, it may be noted here that the Govt. Appeal No. 10/94 (R) was filed which was dismissed on limitation matter as the application for condonation was rejected vide order dated 22-11-1994. Admittedly, the said Govt. Appeal was neither dismissed on merit, nor it was considered on merit. ( 5 ) AT the very outset, it may be noted here that the Govt. Appeal No. 10/94 (R) was filed which was dismissed on limitation matter as the application for condonation was rejected vide order dated 22-11-1994. Admittedly, the said Govt. Appeal was neither dismissed on merit, nor it was considered on merit. ( 6 ) IN the case of Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 1998 SC 990 : (1998 Cri LJ 1409), the Apex Court observed as under at Page 991 :"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, this Court observed in Chinnaswamy Reddys, AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963 (1) Cri LJ 8) as under:"it is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but thus jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when 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. " ( 7 ) NO doubt, Kumud Kumar died due to several injuries caused on his person including head, which will be evident from the autopsy of the deceased. The doctor, P. W. 7, found the following injuries : (I) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x bone deep over the middle part of the left parietal area; (II) Abrasions 1/2" x 1/2" and 11/2 x 11/4" on the back of the right elbow. THERE was contusion over the scalp measuring 2" x 2" with a depressed fracture 11/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" underneath the lacerated head injury. THE doctor also opined about the cause of death due to head injury which was caused by blunt force, might be an iron rod. The injury was ante mortem in nature and sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death (Ext. 3 ). THE doctor also opined about the cause of death due to head injury which was caused by blunt force, might be an iron rod. The injury was ante mortem in nature and sufficient, in ordinary course of nature, to cause death (Ext. 3 ). ( 8 ) P. W. 1, Pratima Devi, the mother of the deceased and P. W. 3, Sunita Devi, sister of the deceased, who are said to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, stated consistently that accused, Anuj Singh gave iron rod blow on the head of the deceased, as they claimed to be sitting on their Balcony together at the relevant time. ( 9 ) IT is true that the Informant (P. W. 4) appears to have stated in the FIR that it was B. P. Singh, who gave iron rod blow on the head of the deceased, though he claimed in his evidence during trial that Anuj Singh assaulted with iron rod giving fatal blow to the deceased. Even if P. W. 4, the Informant changed his version in the Court regarding the assault, that will go against, him only. Kumud, son of the Informant died due to injury caused in his presence, as a result of which the mental condition of the father must have been shackened and purplexed. Furthermore, in the case of Dharma Ram Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1973 SC 476 : (1973 Cri LJ 680) the Apex Court held at Page 481; of AIR:"the first information report is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in Court as a witness. Its value must always depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The F. I. R. can only dis-credit the testimony of its maker. It can by no means be utilised for contradicting or dis-crediting the other witnesses who do not have any desire to spare the real culprit and to falsely implicate him. Thus the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that in the first information report an altogether different version is given by its maker. " ( 10 ) KUMUD Kumar was actually killed during the occurrence in question, is undisputed. Equally undisputed is the nature of injuries found on his person. Thus the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that in the first information report an altogether different version is given by its maker. " ( 10 ) KUMUD Kumar was actually killed during the occurrence in question, is undisputed. Equally undisputed is the nature of injuries found on his person. The doctor also found fatal injury on the head resulting his death. P. Ws. 1 and 3, though mother and sister of the deceased, are consistent in their evidence and as such the evidence of those two eye-witnesses cannot be thrown away or rejected as their presence at the relevant time is natural. It is settled that "related" is not equivalent to interested. The witness who is natural one and is the only possible eye-witness, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be interested. Mere relationship of witness with the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony rather such evidence should be scrutinised with care and caution. Merely because the Informant/father, who was mentally purplexed due to the death of his young son, named another person as assailant, though he corrected the name of the assailant later on, the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown away. In weighing the entire prosecution case, the Court cannot ignore the evidence of eye-witnesses who are said to be competent and natural. Thus, the trial Court cannot discard the testimony of eye-witnesses on mere presumption which does not take place of substantive piece of evidence. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 hasfully been corroborated by the medical evidence but the trial Court has not considered their evidences comparatively. Non-appreciation of the evidence of those witnesses by the Sessions Judge is totally erroneous, ignoring the ground realities and facts situation which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. ( 11 ) THERE appears no reason to doubt the presence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 (mother and sister) at the scene of occurrence, when occurrence admittedly took place by the side of their quarter. The trial Court held in its judgment as follows :"it might be that somehow or other subsequently the member of the family of the deceased or for that matter the Investigating Agency had come to learn that fatal blow was given by Anuj Singh and not by B. P. Singh and they chose to change their version. The trial Court held in its judgment as follows :"it might be that somehow or other subsequently the member of the family of the deceased or for that matter the Investigating Agency had come to learn that fatal blow was given by Anuj Singh and not by B. P. Singh and they chose to change their version. " ( 12 ) SUCH observation was made only on the presumption, when admittedly both P. Ws. 1 and 3 are said to be the eye-witnesses of assault. Therefore, the question to have learnt about the main assailant does not arise for those eye-witnesses. Even the whole testimony of P. W. 4 (Informant) vanishes, the consistent and corroborative testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 3 supported by P. Ws. 6 and 7 (Investigating Officer and doctor) remained intact. Surprisingly enough to note that the trial Court has also not accepted the defence story as the statement of D. W. 1 was not found to be correct. Admittedly, none of the accused sustained any injury at the relevant time and there is nothing to show that the deceased sustained the injury by fall or by any other means. The trial Court also observed in its judgment that there is no allegation in the First Information Report that in the Balcony besides the Informant, his wife and daughter were also present either sitting or standing. ( 13 ) THE Court should not expect every detail of event and sequence to be mentioned in the First Information Report as the First Information Report cannot be said to be Encyclopaedia and admittedly the First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is admitted position that the Informant and the accused persons have got their Quarters in the same building and, therefore, the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. ( 14 ) FROM the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is absolutely clear, that the trial Court totally discarded the evidence of material/eye-witnesses led by the prosecution and passed the judgment impugned on the basis of presumption, which is fit to be set aside. ( 15 ) IN the result, I find merit in this revision application, which is accordingly allowed. ( 15 ) IN the result, I find merit in this revision application, which is accordingly allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is, hereby, set aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court for re-trial in accordance with law. Needless to say that the trial Court will proceed with the case without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. Application allowed. --- *** --- .