ORDER A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. I.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents and also heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This revision has been carried from the judgment and order dated 11-12-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 18/1998 by which the accused/respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 364/302/34 IPC. 3. The facts in a short compass as projected by the prosecution may be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this revision. One Islam Uddin Barbhuiyan, PW.1, lodged an ejahar at Katigorah Police Station alleging that his brother, Jamiruddin who was running a motor workshop at Panchgram used to go to his workshop daily from his village residence at Ujangram and on 29-9-1992, as usual, went to his workshop at Panchgram but did not return in the evening to his house. 4. Fojiruddin, PW. 4, the younger brother of the deceased who was also working in the said workshop with the deceased, on the following morning at about 10.00 a.m. came to the village and reported inmates of the house that the dead body of his brother was lying near the PWD road at Fuibari. Then the informant, PW1, along with villagers went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead with different injuries on his body. On the basis of the said ejahar, police registered a case under Section 302 IPC. Investigation ensued and post mortem was conducted on the dead body at Silchar Medical College Hospital, Silchar. During the investigation on 31-10-1992 i.e. after two days of the incident, one Parimal Malakar, PW2, was arrested by the police who was the driver of the taxi i.e. Ambassador Car No. MLZ 2468. He revealed the whole episode to I.O. stating how the accused persons namely Jainal Hussain, Abdul Kadir, Aibur Rahman and Labu Mia went with the deceased from Panchgram on 29-9-1992 in his taxi and committed murder of the deceased in his presence. Thereafter, Abdul Kadir and Jainal Hussain were arrested who confessed their guilt before the Investigating Officer, PW7 and later on Investigation Officer recorded the confessional statements of Abdul Kadir and Jainal Hussain including the statements of other witnesses under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. 5. Thereafter, Abdul Kadir and Jainal Hussain were arrested who confessed their guilt before the Investigating Officer, PW7 and later on Investigation Officer recorded the confessional statements of Abdul Kadir and Jainal Hussain including the statements of other witnesses under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. 5. On completion of the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons namely, (1) Jainal Hussain @ Bhodai, (2) Abdul Kadir, (3) Aibur Rahman and (4) Labu Mia, showing Labu Mia as absconder. 6. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the said Court. Before the court, at the initial stage of trial, submission was made for discharge of the accused persons on the ground that there was no iota of evidence to connect them with the crime. Even a petition under Section 307 Cr. P. C. was moved on behalf of one of the accused Parimal Malakar with a prayer to pardon him from the allegation of commission of such offence and to make him a witness. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 16-1-1999 allowed the petition and Parimal Malakar was categorized as eye-witness being PW 2 by tendering pardon to him. Thereafter, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against all the remaining accused persons under Sections364/302/34 IPC separating the case of Labu Mia who did not turn up. Those charges were read over and explained to which the accused/respondents pleaded not guilty. 7. Prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the approver Parimal Malakar as PW 2 and the Doctor as PW 6 and investigating Officer as PW 7, when the defence adduced none. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties exclusively and on meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on records, the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar by the impugned judgment and order dated 11-12-2001 acquitted all those accused/respondents from the charges giving them benefit of doubt observing that the prosecution failed to bring him the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the petitioner, being the informant, PW. 1 has preferred this revision under Section 401 read with 397 Cr. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the petitioner, being the informant, PW. 1 has preferred this revision under Section 401 read with 397 Cr. P. C. stating that though the State had intended to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of accused persons, ultimately no appeal was preferred for which the petitioner has to move this Court. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel or the petitioner, has contended that learned Sessions Judge committed a gross illegality as well as miscarriage of justice by acquitting all those accused persons of charge of murder because the impugned acquittal was based absolutely on perverse finding. His grounds of attack are (i) the material evidence especially of PW 2 was totally ignored by the trial Court; (ii) the corroboration of time as recorded in the medical evidence of PW. 6 with the liming of the death was totally overlooked and (iii) 'the last seen together' theory was lost sight by the learned Sessions Judge though it was clearly established from the depositions of Jamir Uddin, PW.3 and Fojiruddin, PW. 4 that the deceased was last seen with the accused Abdul Kadir and Jainal Hussain at Panshop on 29-9-1992. 10. In order to appreciate the first submission advanced by Mr. Laskar as abovementioned, it would be necessary to look into the evidences of PW.2, PW.3 and PW. 4. 11. PW.2, Parimal Malakar, who became approver, in his deposition, stated that on 29-9-1992 while he was at taxi stand at about 1.00 p.m. one the accused/respondent No. 4 Labu Mia asked him for hiring his taxi for going to Machimpur. When he reached Machimpur point, four accused/respondents boarded in his taxi and asked to go to Katigorah via Ramnagar where he took petrol. Then they reached Panchgram and all the accused persons alighted from the taxi and out of the four, accused Aibur and Kadir went to a nearby hotel and the remaining two went to the workshop of Jamiruddin, the deceased, to bring him and all the four accused/respondents and the deceased Including himself took their meal and wine in a hotel at Panchgram. Thereafter, according to their instruction, he proceeded towards Chowringee. Thereafter, according to their instruction, he proceeded towards Chowringee. On reaching Katigorah Chowringee, some of the accused persons alighted from the taxi and took pan and at that time it was about 7.30/8.00 p.m. and then they instructed him to turn the taxi towards Fulbari as they wanted to purchase a Matador Vehicle at Fulbari. Accused Aibur was sitting with him and the remaining three persons were in the back seat of the taxi. It came on the evidence of the said witness, i.e. PW.2 that he observed that all the persons talking aimlessly as they were fully drunken. While proceeding further towards the ferryghat on way near Gonirgram Shantipur, suddenly his car fell in a ditch on the road full of rainy water and mud near a mosque and for which the engine of the vehicle was stopped. He deposed that at that stage, the accused Labu alighted from the car and held his collar and dragged him out from the taxi and Labu himself occupied the driving seat. Other inmates of the car also came out and with the help of some people who were going to the mosque, the taxi was lifted from the mud. Thereafter, the accused Labu started plying the vehicle without informing him anything but somehow he managed to enter into the back seat of the vehicle. Only on that stage of his entrance to the car, he saw the dead body of Jamir lying on the back seat of the vehicle. When he touched the dead body, the accused persons became excited and threatened him by showing daggers not to touch the dead body otherwise they would kill him. After proceeding a short distance, they stopped the car, Jainal and Labu brought out the dead body from inside the car and took to towards the nearby field near the road and threw it in the field. Thereafter, accused Labu started driving the car and he was inside the car along with other accused persons. On way the accused persons tried to kill him by throwing into the river Barak at Badarpur bridge and on his prayer for mercy, he was left and ultimately he was confined at a house at Machimpur with the vehicle. In cross, the witness stated that he was arrested by the police at Machimpur after two days of occurrence and thereafter he was sent to seven days' police custody. In cross, the witness stated that he was arrested by the police at Machimpur after two days of occurrence and thereafter he was sent to seven days' police custody. During police custody, petitioner was asked by the police to speak the truth for which police assured to help him. 12. PW. 3 Jamir Uddin, an owner of Panshop at Panchgram at the nearby workshop of the deceased, in his deposition, stated that the deceased went to his workshop at Panchgram at about 5.30 p.m. with two unknown persons and out. those two unknown persons, one was standing on the dock and he identified him as Abdul Kadir and according to him on the following day he came to learn that Jamiruddin was murdered and dead body was lying at Fulbari. In cross also he testified that he did state to the police that two unknown persons who accompanied the deceased on the date of incident would be identified by him if seen. 13. PW. 4 Fojiruddin, the younger brother of the deceased, deposed that in the evening, an ambassador car went from Silchar side and stopped in front of the garage of the deceased and two of the passengers alighted from the vehicle and went to the garage in search of his brother and one of the persons asked him whereabout of his brother and then he told them that his brother had gone to the pan shop for taking pan, pointing out the pan shop. Then he saw that those two persons were gossiping with his brother who then told the witness to remain in the garage saying that he along with other persons were going to see a vehicle. At that time he saw other two persons also. They were Kadir and Jainal. Those two other persons who were sitting in the vehicle were Aibur and Labu who were identified in the dock as they hail from his own village. The vehicle thereafter proceeded towards Badarpur and his brother did not returned on that night. On the following morning at about 6.00 a.m., he was reported that his brother was lying death at Fulbari. 14. Now let us examined the deposition of Investigation Officer, PW. 7, Satyanath Das. In cross, this witness contradicted the version of PW.3 and PW. The vehicle thereafter proceeded towards Badarpur and his brother did not returned on that night. On the following morning at about 6.00 a.m., he was reported that his brother was lying death at Fulbari. 14. Now let us examined the deposition of Investigation Officer, PW. 7, Satyanath Das. In cross, this witness contradicted the version of PW.3 and PW. 4 stating that PW.3 did not state to him that two unknown persons accompanied the deceased on the date of incident and they could be identified by him if seen. According to this witness, PW. 4 also did not state to him that on 29-9-1992 in the evening one Ambassador car came from Silchar side and stopped in front of their garage and two persons alighted therefrom and went to the garage in search of his deceased brother. PW.7 categorically deposed that PW. 4 did not tell him that his deceased brother boarded into the said car and proceeded towards Badarpur alongwith the accused persons. 15. After going through the evidences of the above witnesses, it appears that the credibility of the depositions of PW.2, PW.3 and PW. 4 is doubtful and as such this Court does not find any element of perversity in the impugned finding of acquittal of the respondents. 16. Further it may also be noted that the statements of P.W.2 that he was pushed out from the taxi when the taxi was struck into the mud and thereafter car was driven by Labu leaving him but somehow he managed to occupy the back seat of the car and then only he found the dead body therein, are absolutely unbelievable and unacceptable. Besides, when medical evidence showed that there were two injuries on the neck of the deceased, the deposition of this witness to the effect that he did not notice anything although he was driving the said car while deceased was alleged to be killed in the back seat is something surprising and the same lacks trustworthiness. 17. It would also be appropriate to highlight the medical evidence hereinunder of PW. 6, who held the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased: "Injuries: (1) Cut wound spindle shape 12 x 2.5 cm x bone deep present obliquely on the front of neck. 17. It would also be appropriate to highlight the medical evidence hereinunder of PW. 6, who held the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased: "Injuries: (1) Cut wound spindle shape 12 x 2.5 cm x bone deep present obliquely on the front of neck. The right and upper end being at 5 cm below the angle of lower jaw on right side and left and lower end of the cut was located at 7 cm below the thyroid prominence. Right side sternomastoid muscle, carotid, vessels and nerves, trachea, oesophagus, were cut completely and body of 5th cervical vertebrae was partially cut. (2) The ligature mark slightly oblique completely surrounding the neck measuring 30 x 2 cm in size was located at 5cm above the thyroid prominence and on the back of 7 cm below the occiput. Back portion of ligature mark was at higher level slightly. (3) Multiple contusions over 6 cm x 1.5 cm area present vertically on the front of right leg 20 cm above the heel. All other organs were found healthy and pale. Stomach contained 150 grams of partially digested food without suspicious smell. Brain was healthy and pale. Heart was healthy and empty. Opinion: I was of the opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the cut wound on the neck. The cut wound and the ligature mark were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The cut was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Time since death was approximately in between 30 to 40 hours. Ext. 5 is the post mortem report and Exts. 5(1) and 5(2) are my signatures with seal" 18. When the injuries forenoticed were found on the body of the deceased, there is no valid reason to accept why PW.2 who was admittedly inside the car in the driving seat, failed to see such injuries which were alleged to have been inflicted inside the car itself. In view thereof, I am of the view that the trial Court rightly discarded evidence of PW.2. 19. Now on the basis of the evidence of Doctor as well as other witnesses, the second argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that corroboration of the doctor's evidence as regards the time of occurrence of the incident with those of the witnesses especially PW.2, was given a total go-bye. Mr. 19. Now on the basis of the evidence of Doctor as well as other witnesses, the second argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that corroboration of the doctor's evidence as regards the time of occurrence of the incident with those of the witnesses especially PW.2, was given a total go-bye. Mr. Laskar's argument is that when the time of death was categorically mentioned in the medical evidence in order to corroborate with the testimony of the other witnesses, non-consideration of the same by the trial Court resulted in miscarriage of justice. But this Court is of the firm opinion that mere corroboration of the doctor's evidence as regards the timing of the death cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused and as such the submission made in this regard cannot be approved. 20. Now coming to the point of 'last seen together' theory, it appears that the investigation officer, P.W. 7 has categorically deposed that two witnesses i.e. PW. 3 and PW. 4 had never stated before him as regards the going of Jamiruddin, the deceased along with the two accused persons as deposed by the PW. 3 and Pw. 4. If the evidence of investigation officer, PW.7 is accepted the 'last seen theory' as argued by Mr. Laskar has no leg to stand and this Court does not see any implausibility in the testimony of PW. 7. 21. Since it is a revision petition filed by the informant/petitioner against the acquittal of the respondents and there is very limited scope for interference by this Court with the impugned acquittal under its revisional jurisdiction. Mr. Laskar has tried to impress upon the Court stating that there is glaring illegality as well as miscarriage of justice apparent on the face of the impugned judgment and hence this Court has the power to entertain this petition. To bolster up his submission, Mr. Laskar has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh reported in AIR 1998 SC 3380 : (1998 Cri LJ 16) where the Apex Court in paragraph-7 observed that-- "..... High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it if found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issued have been overlooked." 22. Mr. Laskar has also relied upon the following decisions in favour of his submissions on those grounds noted above: (1) Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (2) Madan Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab reported in (3) Bodhraj alias Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (4) Sahadevan alias Sagadevan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in. 23. But given facts and circumstances of the case, the principles of law laid down in the above cases are not at all applicable in the instant case. 24. In support of impugned judgment, Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondents has forcefully argued that no illegality and/or miscarriage of justice has been committed by the learned Court below in arriving at a decision of acquittal of the respondents. He has emphasized that the entire evidence on record has been carefully assessed by the trial Court and on proper and correct appreciation of the same, Court has come to the said conclusion. 25. That apart, he has also categorically stated that in a revision petition, preferred by an informant, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidences in order to make a case for retrial. The instant is not a fit case for interference because the testimony of the witnesses explicitly manifested a case of acquittal. In order to substantiate his submission. Mr. Rajbarbuiya has also relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court : (1) State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C. Sukla reported in. (2) Jagannath Choudhury and Ors. v. Ramayan Singh and Anr. reported in. (3) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in. 26. In order to substantiate his submission. Mr. Rajbarbuiya has also relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court : (1) State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C. Sukla reported in. (2) Jagannath Choudhury and Ors. v. Ramayan Singh and Anr. reported in. (3) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in. 26. Law is well settled that in case of a revision against an order of acquittal preferred by a private party, in absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of trial, scrutiny of the evidence or re-appreciation of evidence on record by the High Court is not permissible. It is also accepted that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into the Appellate Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into the question of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. 27-28. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment and materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properly and appropriately assessed and appreciated the evidence on record and there is no perversity appeared in the impugned judgment with regard to the assessment of the evidence especially PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, and PW. 7. Accordingly it is held that impugned judgment does not suffer from any glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice to attract the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. That being so, I do not find any merit in this revision. 29. Consequently this revision fails and stands dismissed.