Judgment :- N. Krishnan Nair, J. This revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl. R.P. No. 84/1999. The revision petitioners herein as accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 in C.C. No. 201/1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. They were charged with the offences punishable under Sec. 452, 323, 324 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The prosecution allegation is that on 19/6/1995 at 7.00 p.m. the accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the residential building belonging to Pw-1 armed with dangerous weapons and attacked Pw-1 to Pw-3, as a result of which, PW-1 to PW-3 suffered injuries. While accused Nos. 1 and 3 are alleged to have inflicted injuries on PWS-1 and 2 with dangerous weapons, accused Nos. 2 and 4 had not allegedly used by weapon. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts. P1 to P5 and identified M.Os 1 and 2. On a consideration of the evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case against the accused and accordingly acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the defacto complainant preferred Crl. R.P. No. 84/1999 before the Sessions Judge, thrissur and by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of acquittal and remitted back the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. The order of remand is seriously challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the lower court should not have reversed the finding of acquittal on a reappraisal of the evidence. He further contended that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private party can be exercised only in exceptional cases. According to him, the court below has misapreciated and misunderstood the evidence in the case. 3. At the outset, I must say that the impugned order of the court below is clearly unsustainable. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the assumption that the evidence of the injured witnesses should be accepted by the court even if the evidence is tainted with inconsistencies and improbabilities. No doubt, the court can rely on the evidence of an injured witness to convict an accused without any independent corroboration if the evidence is found to be reliable and acceptable. No doubt, the court can rely on the evidence of an injured witness to convict an accused without any independent corroboration if the evidence is found to be reliable and acceptable. But the presence of injury on the person of a witness does not guarantee his truthfulness. The evidence of an injured witness also should be properly scanned or weighed before the evidence is accepted by the Court. The Court is not bound to accept the evidence of injured witnesses if their evidence is found to be hopelessly contradictory and utterly unreliable. In this case, the trial court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are the alleged injured witnesses. 4. It is also relevant to note through Pws 1 to 3 sustained injuries in the incident, the would certificates issued to them were not produced before the trial court. The doctor who is alleged to have examined PWs1 to 3 was also not examined in the case. The failure of the prosecution to examine the doctor and also to produce the would certificates casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge is not justified in directing the lower court “to secure proof of the would certificate issued by the doctor who examined PWs 1 to 3 at the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur”. It is not the duty of the court to collect evidence for the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The revisional court is not justified in directing the trial to secure evidence for the prosecution after reversing an order of acquittal. In this connection it is relevant to note the following observation of the Supreme Court in Jagannath Choudhary & Ors v. Ramayan singh & Anr. (JT 2002 (Suppl. 1) SC 139) : “It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible”. It appears that learned Sessions Judge has not properly understood the scope of the revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal. Revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private party cannot be exercised lightly. It can be exercised only in exceptional cases. It appears that learned Sessions Judge has not properly understood the scope of the revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal. Revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private party cannot be exercised lightly. It can be exercised only in exceptional cases. I am not confident enough to include this case in the category of exceptional cases warranting interference in revision. According to me, the learned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the lower court. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to sustain the order of the learned Sessions Judge. I set aside the impugned order and restore the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate. The revision is thus allowed.