Order S.J. Mukhopa, dhaya J. - These criminal revision applications have been preferred by the petitioners against the findings of acquittal passed by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. 2. In almost all the cases, as the findings of acquittal have been challenged on the ground that they are not in conformity with the evidence on record, the question arises is: "Whether a revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr. P.C. against the finding of acquittal is maintainable or not on the ground that the finding arrived at by the trial court below is perverse• and/or it has been passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record." 3. Before deciding the issue, it is necessary to notice the decisions, of Supreme Court regarding revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against a finding of acquittal. 4. In' the case of D. Stephens vs. Nosibolla, reported in A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 196, the Supreme Court held:- "The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Government has a right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention• of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on the record:' 5. In the case of Logendranath Jha v S.Shri Polailal Biswas, reported in A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 316, following was the observation of the Supreme Court:- "Though sub-s.(1) of S. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorizes the High Court to exercise in its discretion any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by S.423, yet sub-s.(4) specifically excludes the power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. This does not mean that in dealing with a revision petition by a private party against an order of acquittal, the High Court can in the absence of any error on a point of law re-appraise the evidence and reverse the findings of facts on which the acquittal was based, provided only it stops short of finding the accused guilty & passing sentence on him by ordering are-trial." 6. In the case of Chinns Swamy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788, while the Supreme Court held that it is open to a, High Court in revision to set aside order of acquittal even at the instance of a private party observed, that the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised 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. The Supreme Court further held: "...Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from convertinga a finding of acquittal into conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it, cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the, prosecution wished to produce or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4)..." 7. Aforesaid view was reiterated by Supreme Court in the Case of "Akali Ahir and others vs. Ramdeo Ram", reported in (1993)2 S.C.C. 583; "Simal Singh vs. Human Singh and another", reported in 1998 (2) East Cr. C. 1098 (S.C.); JT. 1998 (7) S.C. 98 & "Thankappan Nagar vs. Gopala Krishna", reported in 2003( 1) East Cr. C. 201. 8. From the decisions of Supreme Court, as referred above, it would be evident that: (a) the revisional court has limited jurisdiction; (b) It can be exercised only in exceptional cases, such as; (i) When there is some glaring defect in the procedure And/or (ii) There is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 9. This Court has also noticed some of the illustrations given by the Supreme Court which may justify interference with a finding of acquittal under the revisional jurisdiction, such as; (i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused; (ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wish to produce; (iii) Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was adopted by the trial court to be inadmissible; (iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appellate court; (v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law; (vi) Where the admissible evidence was ruled out and was not taken into consideration; and (vii) Other cases of similar nature. 10. From the aforesaid decisions, it is also clear that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to pass the following orders while interfering with. 10. From the aforesaid decisions, it is also clear that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to pass the following orders while interfering with. a finding of acquittal in revision: (a) It cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction; (b) It is incumbent on the part of the revisional court to see that it cannot convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by indirectly ordering retrial but it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. 11. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible for the revisional courts at the instance of complainant against the order of acquittal. The revisional courts should not deal with the evidence in such detail when it is going to order for a re-trial. Such detail consideration of evidence as pointed out in Logendranath's case (A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 316 amounts to loading the dice against the accused, when the case goes for re-trial. In the case of Chinna Swamy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.A. 1962 S.C. 1718, the Supreme Court decided the question as to what order should be passed by the revisional court. It held as follows: "...The only course open to it is to set aside the acquittal and send the case back to the -trial court for retrial. But there may be another type of case, namely, where the trial court has convicted the accused while the appeal court has acquitted him. In such a case if the conclusion of the High Court is that the order of the appeal court must be set aside, the question is whether the appeal court should be ordered to re-hear the appeal after admitting the statement it had ruled out or whether there should necessarily be a retrial. So far as this is concerned, we are of opinion that it is open to the Higt) Court to take either of the two courses. It may order a retrial or it may order the appeal court to re-hear the appeal. It will depend upon the facts of each case whether the High Court would order the appeal court to re-hear the appeal or would order a retrial by the trial court..." Cr. Rev. No. 346/2003 (Ujjawal Kumar Choudhary): 12. It may order a retrial or it may order the appeal court to re-hear the appeal. It will depend upon the facts of each case whether the High Court would order the appeal court to re-hear the appeal or would order a retrial by the trial court..." Cr. Rev. No. 346/2003 (Ujjawal Kumar Choudhary): 12. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 13th January, 2003 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (F.T.C. for short), Jamtara in S.C. NO.12 of 2002/67 of 2002, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted all the accused parties for the offence u/ss. 302 and 201 I.P.C. 13. The case of the prosecution, as per Fardbeyan dated 4th September, 2001 of Informant Ujjawal Kumar Choudhary, P.w. 2 (petitioner herein) is that on the said date i.e. 4th September, 2001 when he was at his house, he received information that his younger brother Kajal Kumar Chaudhary was killed and his dead body was lying in one field near Tulsi Chowk-Shaluja. On this information, he alongwith other villagers went to near field and found his younger brother lying dead. Both the legs of deceased were tied with a rope and blood was oozing from the right leg. There were injuries on left cheek, neck and lower lip. The Informant also found that some blue medicines has been poured in the mouth of the deceased and a container containing the blue liquid was lying there. A sample ample of "Tetvack injection" was kept there. Hero Jet cycle and Hawai Slipper were also found near the deceased. Some broken pieces of glass were scattered near the body. Further case of Informant is that the deceased had a Medicine Store at Amba where he used to go from his village. One Sunil Bowry used to work with him who used to return daily with the deceased. Sunil told the informant that on the 3rd September, 2001 while the deceased was returning home from the Medicine Shop, some unknown persons killed him either by hard blunt substance or by strangulation. 14. On the basis of Fa rdbeyan, Kundahit PS. Case No. 57/2001 dated 4th September, 2001 was registered under section 302/201 of I.PC. against unknown persons and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Opposite party. Accused Opposite party having pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded. 15. 14. On the basis of Fa rdbeyan, Kundahit PS. Case No. 57/2001 dated 4th September, 2001 was registered under section 302/201 of I.PC. against unknown persons and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Opposite party. Accused Opposite party having pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded. 15. The prosecution examined altogether 11 (eleven) witnesses in order to prove charges including Sunil Boury (PW1), Salesman of the Medicine Shop of the deceased; Kakuli Mazee (P.W 3) who was having love affairs with the deceased and Sunil Kumar Choudhary (P.W 10), father of the deceased who, according to the petitioner, are the main witnesses. 16. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-production of Viscera report by prosecution resulted grave miscarriage of justice. It was also submitted that Kakuli Mazee (P.W 3) in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. deposed that she was in love with the deceased; in the night at about 8.30 P.M. on 3rd September, 2001, while she was sitting with the deceased in her house the accused persons came and forcibly took the deceased by gagging his mouth. Sunil Kumar Soury (P.W1) in his statement made under section 164 Cr. P.C. deposed that the accused persons had given threat to kill the deceased due to rivalry on account of his love affairs with Kakuli Mazee (P.W 3). It was also submitted that Sunil Kumar Choudhary (P.W1 0), father of the deceased in his deposition stated that the accused Nimali Mandai was sitting in Medicine Shop with his deceased son on the day of occurrence and thereafter when he left the Medicine Shop, after sometime, he saw the accused persons sitting near the place of occurrence (a Pond). He further deposed that Sunil Soury (P.W1) had told him "about the threat given by the accused persons to the deceased. It was submitted that there were materials on record to convict the accused persons. 17. Admittedly, Sunil Sowry (P.W.1) and Kakuli Mazee (P. W3) became hostile during the trial. Trial Court noticed the fact that the death of the deceased took place in the evening of 3rd September, 2001, but as per evidence of P'W1, the deceased left on 3rd September, 2001 as usual and had proceeded towards his village. 17. Admittedly, Sunil Sowry (P.W.1) and Kakuli Mazee (P. W3) became hostile during the trial. Trial Court noticed the fact that the death of the deceased took place in the evening of 3rd September, 2001, but as per evidence of P'W1, the deceased left on 3rd September, 2001 as usual and had proceeded towards his village. Taking into consideration the fact that there was nothing on the record to suggest as to how the deceased was killed and that a slip was recovered from the person of the deceased wherein it was written that he committed suicide, the trial court was of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. 18. Though it was suggested by the counsel for the petitioner to reappraise the evidence, but it is not possible for the• Court to do so under the revisional jurisdiction. In absence of any manifest error or law of procedural defect, it is not possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and to take a contrary view against the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused persons. Cr. Rev. No. 379/2003 (Ramesh Choudhary): 19. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order and judgment dated 26th February, 2003 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the trial court has acquitted the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 for the charges under section 302 of I.P.C. 20. The case of the prosecution as per the Fardbeyan of Ramesh Choudhary is that on 2nd January, 1998 at about 2 P.M. while he was at his door, the accused i.e. Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 armed with Lathis and Iron Rods started assaulting the informant and his two brothers and chased them. His younger brother Sandeep anyhow escaped but the accused persons surrounded his other brother, Shankar Choudhary (deceased) and started giving indiscriminate blow of Lathi, Iron Rods, fist and slaps and then left the place thinking that the deceased had died. The Informant reached the place of occurrence and found his brother in senseless condition and was breathing. The Informant immediately took him to Hospital but on the way, Shankar Choudhary died. The Informant reached the place of occurrence and found his brother in senseless condition and was breathing. The Informant immediately took him to Hospital but on the way, Shankar Choudhary died. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that on 1st January, 1998 while the Informant alongwith others had gone to celebrate Picnic, some hot exchange had taken place, abusive language was used and due to such quarrel, accused persons had committed the offence. It was alleged that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and had came at his house and assaulted him and his brother Shankar Choudhary and due to such assault Shankar Choudhary had died. 21. On the basis of Fardbeyan, Latehar P.S. case No. 2/98 was registered and after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under sections 147; 148; 149; 323 and 302 of the I.P.C., the defence having denied the allegation, they were tried. 22. The prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses. They are Jira Devi (P.W.1); Dinesh Ram (P.W.2), a Rickshaw Puller who took the deceased to Hospital in injured condition; Rakesh Kumar @ Babalu (P.W.3); Sandip Choudhary (P.WA), brother of the deceased aged about 14 years; Krishna Ram Chandabanshi (P.W.5); Ramesh Choudhary (P.W.6-lnformant); Mahavir Choudhary (P.W.7), father of the deceased; Dr. Ashok Kumar Das (P.W.8), who conducted Post mortem on the body of the deceased; Santosh Kumar (p.W.9); Urmila Devi (P.W.10); Ramesh Kumar (p.W.11); Shivnandan Singh (P.W.12) and Bijay Kumar Singh (P.W.13), the first Investigating Officer. 23. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 have not supported the case of the prosecution and not stated anything against the accused. Therefore, most of them were declared hostile. The entire prosecution rests on the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 4, 6, 7 and 11, eye witnesses of the occurrence. 24. The trial court found that there were major contradictions in their evidence of alleged eye witnesses i. e. P. WS.1, 4, 6, 7 and 11 regarding manner of occurrence. It is also found that there has been conflict between the ocular evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence. The eye witnesses made improvement in their deposition. 24. The trial court found that there were major contradictions in their evidence of alleged eye witnesses i. e. P. WS.1, 4, 6, 7 and 11 regarding manner of occurrence. It is also found that there has been conflict between the ocular evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence. The eye witnesses made improvement in their deposition. The injury found on the face of the deceased was sustained a day before the occurrence in the Picnic as per evidence of P.W.7, father of the deceased but Ramesh Kumar (P.W.11) had given altogether a different story that the assault and counter assault took place in between the Informant and the accused parties and in that assault one Abhay Ram had sustained injury. The Investigating Officer did not find any blood in the place of occurrence nor he found any sign of hole in the shirt and Jacket near the cheat of the deceased. A hole ought to have been there in the shirt and the Jacket near the Chest, if any Gupti blow had been given on the chest of the deceased, as per evidence of. the eye witnesses. The medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. The doctor did not find any injury of Lathi and Iron Rod and found only one injury on the chest of the deceased by a sharp pointed weapon. The manner in which the occurrence alleged to have taken place as stated in the Fardbeyan was not supported by any independent witness. The eye witnesses were interested witnesses and were also inimical to the accused. 25. In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial court having acquitted the accused persons, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order, in question, under the revisional jurisdiction, Cr. Revision No. 40212003 (Ram Lakhan Nishad): 26. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. Case No. 822/97 (Tr.No. 218/2003), whereby ,and whereunder, he has been pleased to acquit the Opposite parties' and ordered them to be released from their bail bonds. 27. It appears that a complaint petition was filed by the Informant before the learned A.C.J.M, Dhanbad being C.P Case No. 224/97. 27. It appears that a complaint petition was filed by the Informant before the learned A.C.J.M, Dhanbad being C.P Case No. 224/97. It was alleged that the complainant had purchased two Kathas of land including four Khaprel rooms from one Golu Sonar on payment of full and final amount in presence of his sons vide Sale Deed No. 7110 dated 20th November, 1996. The complainant was in peaceful possession of the purchased land and house which was mutated in his name. On 30th September, 1997 at about 10 A.M., accused Opposite party Nos.1 to 5 armed with lethal weapons entered in his room, caught hold his neck and started pressing the throat with intention to kill him. On this, when the complainant raised Hulla, the witnesses came to save his life. It was alleged that Suresh Sonar took away one Aristocrat Attachee containing two pants, two shirts and one Shawl and a cash of Rs.351/- and all the accused persons threatened to kill him if he reports the matter to .the Police. 28. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that there were evidence of seven prosecution witnesses in support of the case, including Ajay Bishwakarma (P.W1); Raju Srivastava (PW2); Jagnarayan Sharma (PW3); Pappu Ram (P.W4); Ram Lakhan Nishad (PW5); Indrapal Oraon (PW6) and Khublal Sonar (P.W7), the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused persons. 29. Admittedly, the case, in question, arises out of complaint case. In this background, the revision application filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr. P.C. is not maintainable at the instance of the complainant. Further, there being no error of law of procedural defect committed by the court below, it is not permissible for the revisional court to re-appreciate the evidence. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the judgment in question. Cr. Revision No. 446/2003 (Arun Kumar Yadav): 30. This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of acquittal of Opposite party Nos.2 to 11 dated 19th February, 2003 passed by the learned ADJ., Deoghar in' Sessions Case No.7 of 1993/272 of 2002. By the said judgment, the court below has acquitted most of the accused for the charge under section 302, but another accused Manager Rai has been convicted for the same charge under section 302 I.PC. 31. By the said judgment, the court below has acquitted most of the accused for the charge under section 302, but another accused Manager Rai has been convicted for the same charge under section 302 I.PC. 31. The case of the prosecution, as per Fardbeyan of Arun Kumar Yadav is that on 27th January, 1992 at about 2:30 PM., he unloaded bricks from his tractor at about 30 yards from his house and was turning his Tractor. At the same time, his Shepherd Bhagirath Ray was returning with sheep and when he reached near the house of Informant, Managar Ray, Kalachand Ray, Arbind Choudhary and Jay Narayan Mahto came near the sheep and tried to lift for slaughtering. The Shepherd protested and ran into the house, where Informant's father with six labourers were taking meal and came out of the house and raised protest, when all the accused persons went in the house of Jhalku Mahto, Kalawati Devi, wife of Jhalku Mahto gave One Hasua (weapon) to Manager Ray, Dabh (another weapon) to Hemlal, Barchi (also a weapon) to Kalachand Ray, one Danda to Ketaki Ray from her house, whereas Bharat Mahto had country made Pistol, Daro Ray a Oanda, Arbind Choudhary a Sword, Jai Narayan Mahto, a country made pistol, Mithu Mahto a Lathi, Dharmai Ray a Lathi, Khublal ray a country made pistol and Hemchand Mahto having a stone in his hand and came there. 32. It was further alleged that Jhalku Mahto ordered them to kill Lodhar Mahto, whereupon Managar Ray assaulted him on his Neck with Hasua, due to which his vein was cut and Lodhan Mahto fell down. The Informant when came to save, Informant's father was assaulted with Lathi by Kalachand and Hemlal. Other accused persons assaulted Bhagirath Ray, father of Informant died at spot. It was claimed that Baikunth Mahto, Govind Mahto, Shakhi Mahto and Jamun had seen the occurrence. After the occurrence, assailant fled away, villagers assembled and the Barch/ left by Khublal Ray was recovered which was kept by Informant on the roof of his house. It was stated that some of the accused persons were criminals and used to bring some unknown persons in their house and Jhalkhu Mahto was also associated with them. It was protested by Informant's family members, which was the cause of the incident. 33. Bhagirath Ray (PW2) was declared hostile by prosecution. It was stated that some of the accused persons were criminals and used to bring some unknown persons in their house and Jhalkhu Mahto was also associated with them. It was protested by Informant's family members, which was the cause of the incident. 33. Bhagirath Ray (PW2) was declared hostile by prosecution. Ram Manohar Sharma (P.WS) was the 1.0. Dr. A.K. Chatterjee (P.W9) was the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased. Bhola Yadav (PW10) was the formal witness who proved the injury report. 34. Taking into consideration the evidence of other witness, it was found that there was major contradictions in their evidencesas well as in the Fardbeyan, so by the impugned judgment dated 19th February, 2003 while the court below held that the prosecution could prove the charge under section 302, I.PC. against Managar Ray beyond all reasonable doubt, further held that the rest of the accused are not guilty of the charges. 35. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on evidence of Jamun Mahto (P.W1); Sheo Mahto (PW3); Shakti Mahto (P.W.4); Arun Kumar Yadav (P.W.5); Bhagirath Mahto (PW6) and Govind Mahto (P.W?) to suggest that a case was made out to convict the accused Opposite party Nos.2 to 11. But such submission cannot be accepted, there being no manifest error of law or procedural defect The court below having taken into consideration all the material evidence on record, this Court cannot re-appreciate those evidence under revisional jurisdiction to convict the Opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 who have been acquitted from the charges after the trial. Cr. Revision No. 506/2003 (Sun ita Devi): 36. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment dated 8th April, 2003 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.121/2002, whereby and whereunder, the trial court was pleased to record a finding of acquittal and given benefit of doubt in favour of Opposite Party NO.2 for the offence under section 376 of LP.C. 37. The case of the prosecution was that Sunita Devi was living with her motherin-law in the village home, whereas her husband was working as a labourer in Mumbai. Her ailing father-in-law was with his daughter at Kolkata for his treatment On 26th June, 2001 in the evening, accused Hemraj Sao came to her house and asked her mother-in-law to call Darogi Singh to repair the tiles of the roof. Her ailing father-in-law was with his daughter at Kolkata for his treatment On 26th June, 2001 in the evening, accused Hemraj Sao came to her house and asked her mother-in-law to call Darogi Singh to repair the tiles of the roof. Then her mother-in-law went to call Daroogi Singh and then the accused forcibly entered her room and committed rape with her on the point of knife and threat by putting her in fear of death. Her husband was working in Mumbai was informed vyho came and called a Village Panchayat on 26th June, 2001 in which accused did not choose to appear. Thereupon, a case was instituted at the Police Station. 38. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are ample legal eyidence on record as all the prosecution witnesses including the Court Witness NO.1-Suniti Devi the victim who fully supported the case of the prosecution. It was submitted that the learned trial court without proper evaluation of the evidence, wrongly and illegally recorded a finding of acquittal and given benefit of doubt to the accused. 39. From the judgment, it would be evident that the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 22nd June, 2001, but F.I.R. was lodged on 6th July, 2001, after fourteen days of occurrence. The only explanation given by the prosecution was that the victim and her mother-in-law were alone at the time of occurrence and the husband of the victim was residing in Mumbai who was informed and on his return, a Village Panchayat was called and when it could not materialize, the report was lodged before the Police. Such explanation was not believed by the court below as the victim Sunita Devi (P.W.1) herself stated in her cross-examination that on the date of occurrence, apart from her mother-in-law, her Bhagna Kaleshwar Sao was also present in the house. She has further stated that on the next date of occurrence, she narrated the story to one Digan and Rupan who happened to be the brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the victim, but surprisingly, the said Kaleshwar Sao was not examined by the prosecution, who could have been the best witness to corroborate the testimony of the victim. Rupan Sao was also not examined by the prosecution. Rupan Sao was also not examined by the prosecution. However, Digan Sao who was examined, specifically said that he came to know about the occurrence from Jugan Sao and as per statement of Jugan Sao (P.W.3), he reached the Village on 25th June, 2001 which falsifies the statement of the victim that she actually narrated the occurrence on 22nd June, 2001; as claimed by her. 40. Taking into consideration the other evidence which created serious doubt about the. veracity and truthfulness of the prosecution story, the court below allowed benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. 41. I find no ground made out to remit the case for retrial, all the procedures having followed and the deposition of witnesses having taken in accordance with law. Cr. Rev. No. 520/2003 (Gaya Prasad): 42. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 22nd March, 2003 passed by the learned A.D.J., F.T.C. Vth, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 132 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned court below acquitted the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 for the charges under sections 307, 452 and 34 of I.P.C. 43. The case of the prosecution is that on 29th November, 2000 at about 8 P.M. while the Informant was sitting on the Cot of his Verandah just after return from his duty, he heard some noise and look behind and saw accused Shambhu Thakur, his brother Ram Sagar, Sanjay Thakur and Ranjan coming armed with rods, pieces of fire wood and lathi. The accused persons without uttering any word began to assault him with rods and lathi due to which the Informant became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he saw that profuse bleeding was coming out from the wound of his head. The cause of the occurrence stated to be was that on the same date i.e. at about 8 A.M., there was an altercation betwf3en Bebi Devi wife of the Informant and the wife of Shambhu Thakur. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the Opposite Parties. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 44. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court faltered in rejecting the prosecution case on wrong appreciation of evidence and on flimsy ground. The reasons given by the learned court below in acquitting the accused persons is misconceived and erroneous as the same is fully based upon conjecture and surmises. 44. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court faltered in rejecting the prosecution case on wrong appreciation of evidence and on flimsy ground. The reasons given by the learned court below in acquitting the accused persons is misconceived and erroneous as the same is fully based upon conjecture and surmises. Reliance was placed on the deposition of one or other witness, including Informant Gaya Prasad (PW.4r; Dr. B. Dayal (P.W.5); Bebi Devi (PW.2), wife of the Informant who claimed to be the eye witnesses and Soni Kumari (P.W.1), daughter of the Informant. 45. However, there being no error of law and all the procedures having followed and the court below having taken into consideration material evidence on record, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence under its revisional jurisdiction. There is no case made out to remit the cases for retrial. 46. In all these revision applications, there being no merit, they are dismissed.