A. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Revisional application which is directed against a Judgment and order dated 29. 2. 2000 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 1/november 1998 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 900 of 1992 thereby recording an order of acquittal in favour of the accused/opposite parties in respect of charge framed against them under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 325, 427, 448, 436 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE order of acquittal has been sought to be assailed in this Revisional application on behalf of the complainant/petitioner on the ground that the evidence on record was not properly assessed by learned trial Court and although the F. I. R. was lodged at 6. 15 pm. where as the incident took place at 2. 00 p. m. on 01. 6. 1992 there was no scope of concoction and fabrication of the version and P. W. I who himself was a victim of the incident could not be disbelieved and in view of the fact that there was previous grudge and enmity the prosecution case gained more credibility which the learned trial Court failed to consider. ( 3 ) IT was further submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses and the independent eye-witnesses were not believed by the learned Judge which has resulted in a failure of justice and since the ingredients of the offences of sections 307,323,324 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code along with other offences have been proved; the order of acquittal was bad in law and requires to be set aside by the Court in exercise of its revisional powers. ( 4 ) THE learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the evidence and the materials on record and submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court was perverse as it was a result of non-appreciation of material evidence and the order of acquittal was bad in law and should be set aside. He has further pointed out to the various portions of the Judgment of the learned trial Court showing that the learned Court did not marshall the evidence properly and minor instances of inconsistencies were picked up by the learned trial Court over-looking the material aspect of the matter which has rendered the judgment as defective. ( 5 ) THE learned lawyer appearing for the accused / opposite parties has supported the order of acquittal. He has submitted that in the absence of any striking illegality or other infirmity an order of acquittal should not be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision as there is no such patent defect. He has further submitted that the evidence on record were not sufficient to support the Charge framed against the accused and on such evidence no conviction could be based and it was the only option for the learned trial Court to pass the order of acquittal which should not be disturbed. ( 6 ) I have heard the submissions of both the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties and have considered the materials on record and scanned through the evidence. In order to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar it is necessary to refer to the main charges framed against the accused persons in the light of the evidence on record. ( 7 ) LET me now take up the charge in respect of section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and see what is the evidence in this regard. ( 8 ) I find PWs. 1,2,3, and 4, all spoke in one voice with regard to the setting of fire under the direction of the accused/opposite party No. 1 to the Accused / Opposite party No. 3; and PW. 5 who also spoke about setting of fire by the accused persons. While it is the evidence of PWs. 1,2,3 and 4 who consistently spoke in the same tune about the Accused/opposite party No. 1 directing the Accused/opposite Party No. 3 to set fire on their house. PW. 6 after having found the accused being armed with weapons, entering the house of the petitioner he went to the Police Station and on his return found PWs. 1,2,3 and 4 in injured condition and their house was burning. He was a signatory to the seizure of some brunt articles prepared under the Seizure List (Ext. 2) PW. PW. 6 after having found the accused being armed with weapons, entering the house of the petitioner he went to the Police Station and on his return found PWs. 1,2,3 and 4 in injured condition and their house was burning. He was a signatory to the seizure of some brunt articles prepared under the Seizure List (Ext. 2) PW. 7 was also a witness to the said Seizure List (Ext. 2 ). ( 9 ) THE conclusion of the learned trial Court that "the allegged setting fire by accused Ramchandra in the house of Banbehari (P. W. 1) has not been proved by satisfactory evidence. " Is not commensurate with the evidence on record. The focus of the learned trial Court that Ext. 4- the sketch map-Index 'f' is the house of Banbehari which has not been burnt transpiring from the evidence of PW. 14- the Investigating Officer also the emphasis of the learned Judge-"it is alleged in the written F. I. R. that the house of Banbehari was burnt but PW. 5 has stated in his cr. examination that to the east of the burnt house Banbehari lives and the house adjacent to the burnt hose were not burnt P. W. 6 has stated in his cr. examination that the house where Banbehari used to live was not brunt. PW. 10 Narhari Sasmal also corroborated PWs. 5 and 6 by saying that the house where Banbehari lives was not burnt. "has to be read along side with the cross-examination of PW. 3 which reads as follows:"at the time of incident we had one residential house at Bastupur. Banbehari live jointly with us. It is not a fact that Banbehari is living separately for about 20 years. "so also is the cross-examination of PW. 2 which reads as follows:"it is not a fact that my elder brother (PW. 1-Banbehari) lives separately but we live jointly. We have only one residential house. "also the cross-examination of PW. 1 shows:" Myself and other brother live jointly. We have got 2 houses. It is not a fact that I have been living separately prior to birth of my son. "pws. 1,2 and 3 the eye-witnesses as also PW. 4 spoke of setting of fire 'to our house'. PW. 5 deposed-"the accd. persons chased them upto their house. 1 shows:" Myself and other brother live jointly. We have got 2 houses. It is not a fact that I have been living separately prior to birth of my son. "pws. 1,2 and 3 the eye-witnesses as also PW. 4 spoke of setting of fire 'to our house'. PW. 5 deposed-"the accd. persons chased them upto their house. Thereafter some of them brought out articles from their house and some of them set fire to the house";while PW. 6 also spoke of having-"found Banbehari (PW. 1) Khagen (PW. 2) Tapan (PW. 3) and Gita (PW. 4) were in injured condition and their house was burning. "this is the evidence. ( 10 ) I have also scrutinised Ext. 4 Sketch Map. Index 'g' is the house of Gunadhar the father of PWs. 1,2 and 3 by the side of Index 'f' the house of Banbehari. Although it is the true that in his-cross-examination PW. 1 has spoken of two houses while PWs. . 2 and 3 spoke of one house the finding of the learned trial Court-" It is gathered from his cr. examination (PW. 14) that index G as per sketch map is the house of Gunadhar and his brother which has been burnt. Therefore, it cannot be safely said that the house of Banbehari was burnt as alleged. " cannot also altogether be accepted as the factum of setting fire 'to our house' as deposed by the witnesses cannot be washed off in the light of the Ext. 2. ( 11 ) THIS brings us to the other Charge concerning the injury sustained by PWs. 1,2 and 3. The charge under sections 307,323,324 and 325 are jointly taken up for discussion. Therein also I find that the learned trial Court looked at Ext. 5- the injury Report in respect of PWs. 1,2 and 3 from only one angle and harped that there was no evidence with regard to the internment of the injured (PWs. 1,2 and 3) although they had stated that they were admitted in the Hospital for some days. The learned trial Court took out a portion of Ext. 5, Injury Report of PW. 1 and held:"moreover, nature of his injury as per injury report was simple. On the other hand, no medical paper supporting his treatment in the hospital for 6/7 days has not been produced. The learned trial Court took out a portion of Ext. 5, Injury Report of PW. 1 and held:"moreover, nature of his injury as per injury report was simple. On the other hand, no medical paper supporting his treatment in the hospital for 6/7 days has not been produced. It is also gathered from his evidence that he had stated to the doctor of the hospital about assault but the said doctor has not been examined before this Court. So the nature of injury has not also been proved. Moreover, the Ext. 5 (Injury Report) did not disclose the name of the assailants. "in a similar fashion the learned trial Court dealt with the question of injury in respect of PWs. . 2 and 3 as there was no evidence with regard to their internment and non-examination of the Doctor before whom history of assault was stated. ( 12 ) I has the occasion to carefully scrutinise Ext. 5 the Injury Report in respect of PWs. 1,2,3 and 4. It is strange that there is absolutely no discussion about the Injury Report in respect of PW. 4 by the learned trial Court. While it is true the injury of PW. 1 was stated to be simple; but at the same time in respect of PW. 2 the nature of injury was grievous and the X-ray showed fractured shaft of humourous. The doctor who treated PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the Narayangarh Block Belda Block Primary Health Centre was Dr. Prabir Ch. Paul the Block Medical Officer of health who under his dated signature of 1. 6. 92 had examined PWs. . 1, 2, 3 and 4 and found in respect of the nature of injury of PW. 4 "refd. to Sadar Hospital, Midnapore for opinion" as also with regard to the nature of injury of PW. 3 referred to Sadar Hospital, Midnapore for opinion. I am sorry, the learned trial Court misread Ext. 5. I am also sorry the learned trial Court stopped at that and found-""""" the said doctor has not been examined before this Court. " ( 13 ) SO section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands obliterated from the Statute Book" ( 14 ) THE said doctor was a charge-sheeted witness as I find the column of witnesses in the Charge-Sheet. " ( 13 ) SO section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands obliterated from the Statute Book" ( 14 ) THE said doctor was a charge-sheeted witness as I find the column of witnesses in the Charge-Sheet. In the event the said doctor was not examined, the learned trial Court would have examined him notwithstanding the fact that he was not examined by the prosecution although he was a charge-sheeted witness instead of washing his hand of the matter. ( 15 ) IT appears that the learned trial Court could have also called for the Injury Report; treatment records if, at all, before the Sadar Hospital as from Ext. 5 it transpires that both PW. 4 and P. W. 3 were referred for opinion to the Sadar Hospital. ( 16 ) SECTION 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 165 of the Evidence Act had been scrapped of. ( 17 ) IF not, little endeavour of the trial Court to arrive at the core could have revealed a complete picture. Modern Criminal Justice system cannot rest content on a laconic investigation or a reticent and/or recalcitrant prosecution who fails to present suitable evidence in the Box. Something more is demanded. The Court in its quest for retrieving the truth so as to deliver the ultimate justice cannot rest at them. Its journey beings where the prosecution halts. A trial Court cannot be expected to undertake a sight-seeing tour of the prosecution case as charged in the narrow conspectus of the evidence but has to play a role of a columbus to discover new shores where the actual truth lies in its voyage of discovery of Justice. ( 18 ) IT is with this quest in mind it was patently incumbent on the learned trial Court, without meaning any dis-respect whatsoever, to have summoned the doctor as a Court witness within the legislative mandate of section 311 Cr. P. C. and also to satisfy itself with regard to the complete profile of the treatment of PWs. 1,2,3 and 4 by taking resort of section 91, Cr. PC and/or section 165 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, I find there is no discussion by the learned trial Court with regard to the nomenclature of the injury incorporated in Ext. 5 so far as it relates to PW. 4. 1,2,3 and 4 by taking resort of section 91, Cr. PC and/or section 165 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, I find there is no discussion by the learned trial Court with regard to the nomenclature of the injury incorporated in Ext. 5 so far as it relates to PW. 4. ( 19 ) THE non-disclosure of the name of the assailants in the Injury Report cannot itself rob the prosecution case from its fervour. It also appears that the spotlight was focussed by the learned trial Court on the factum of injury of PW. 1 which was 'simple'. But , the axis of the said light did not revolve on the injury mentioned in the said Ext. 5 about PW. 2, whose injury was described as grievous by the doctor; there is absolute silence. ( 20 ) IN all, with respect to the learned trial Court I must say that the entire conspectus of the question of injury suffered by persons who gave an occular account of the dastardly act of the accused persons was not intrinsically sifted by the learned trial Court and unnecessary impetus was given on ancillary aspects of the issue with regard to absence of proof of internment and non-examination of the doctor, which could have set at right by applying the potion recommended in the foregoing paragraphs. ( 21 ) NOW the question with regard to the charge-unlawful assembly, mischief and criminal trespass are concerned, I find the learned trial Court has not discussed the said charge at all; whilst the evidence in this regard is there detail discussion whereof is being refrained as I propose to remand the matter. ( 22 ) I am quite conscious of the fact that sitting in revision the powers of this Court for interference with an order of acquittal is very narrow and restricted. I am equally aware that even where two views are possible the revisional Court cannot substitute the other and should not normally interfere with an order of acquittal unless there is some manifest illegality and/or perverseness or miscarriage of justice. But I am constrained to find that certain basic legal principles and misreading of the evidence were there which have resulted in a failure of justice have to be repaired in this revisional workshop; or else there will be a further failure of Justice from this end. But I am constrained to find that certain basic legal principles and misreading of the evidence were there which have resulted in a failure of justice have to be repaired in this revisional workshop; or else there will be a further failure of Justice from this end. Although setting aside an order of acquittal should be ordered sparingly but in cases where it is so required to be done, not having been done would itself be manifest injustice. ( 23 ) IT is with this noble mission in mind I venture to set aside the judgment and order dated 29. 2. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Trial Case No, 1/november 1998 corresponding to G. R. case No 900 of 1992 thereby directing the acquittal of the Accused/opposite parties from the charge framed against them and send the matter on remand for fresh decision in accordance with law before the learned trial Court having jurisdiction in the matter in view of the guidelines discussed here-in above. The matter after being sent on remand will have to be disposed of by the learned trial Court as expeditiously as possible independently of any observation made in this judgment and/or without being guided by the order of remand, in accordance with law. The Revisional application is allowed. No Order as to costs. Let the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this order be sent down forthwith to the appropriate Court now having jurisdiction to hear the matter. Application allowed