Judgment :- This revision is filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.351 of 2001 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai from the charges levelled against them under Sections 341, 307 and 506(2) I.P.C. 2. The first respondent filed final report for various offences under the Indian Penal Code against the respondents 2 to 5/accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.502 of 2000 of K-1, Sembium Police Station. On the basis of such report, the accused were charged under Sections 341, 307 and 506(2) I.P.C. 3. The case of the prosecution, as per the final report filed by the first respondent, is that on 5.4.2000 at 11.30 p.m. at the junction of Karunanidhi Road and in front of the shop of de facto complainant/the revision petitioner/P.W.1, when the revision petitioner, was sweeping in front of his shop, due to previous enmity, Prakash alias Francis, arrayed as the first accused and his elder brother Jayaraj, arrayed as the second accused and his brothers-in-law by name Venkat alias Venkatesan and Velu, arrayed as accused 3 and 4 respectively each armed with knife restrained P.W.1 and Prakash alias Francis arrayed as the first accused by stating cut him with knife and since he moved a little, it caused injury on his right knee and he fell down. The second accused Jayaraj cut P.W.1 on his head. The first accused again cut with knife on his right hand, because of which three fingers, viz., centre finger, ring finger and little finger on the right hand severed. The third accused and the fourth accused cut P.W.1 on his right hand and right leg. The first accused and the second accused also cut P.W.1 on his left hand and left leg. On his raising noise, P.W.2 Shiva and P.W.8 Subramani came and when they questioned about the attacking, the accused by threatening with knives had run away. On the basis of the final report, charges were framed under Sections 341, 307 and 506(2) I.P.C. against the accused. 4. On his raising noise, P.W.2 Shiva and P.W.8 Subramani came and when they questioned about the attacking, the accused by threatening with knives had run away. On the basis of the final report, charges were framed under Sections 341, 307 and 506(2) I.P.C. against the accused. 4. In the Sessions Court, the de facto complainant himself examined as P.W.1 besides his senior paternal uncle's son Shiva as P.W.2, P.W.1's father Thangaraj as P.W.3, P.W.1's wife Rajeswari as P.W.4, P.W.5 Ethiraj, P.W.6 Dr.Jagan Mohan, P.W.7 Dr.Periyasamy, P.W.8 Subramani, P.W.9 C.Maharani and the Investigating Officer Thiru Annadurai as P.W.10 and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked and M.Os.1 to 4 were produced on the side of prosecution. 5. Considering such evidence and the facts that P.Ws.2 to 5 and the eye witness P.W.8 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and disbelieving the injured witness P.W.1 and the documents, recorded finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused 1 to 4. Such judgment of the Sessions Court is now challenged by the de facto complainant P.W.1. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5/accused 1 to 4. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/de facto complainant argued that despite the fact, the injured witness P.W.1 stated very clearly in his evidence with regard to the occurrence, during which time he was attacked by the accused 1 to 4 with knives and which evidence is supported by the complaint Ex.P-1, wound certificate Ex.P-2 and the accident register Ex.P-3, the acquittal of the accused from the charges levelled against them is not proper. The learned counsel further submitted that though P.Ws.4 and 6 were turned hostile they have stated in their chief examination that they came to the scene of occurrence and found P.W.1 with injuries and took him to hospital. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5/accused 1 to 4 contended that the Sessions Court considering the evidence let in on the side of the prosecution, rightly acquitted the accused since the prosecution failed to discharge the burden. The learned counsel further argued that the revision filed by the de facto complainant and injured witness against the acquittal itself is not maintainable. The learned counsel further argued that the revision filed by the de facto complainant and injured witness against the acquittal itself is not maintainable. In support of such contention the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:- (1) Kishan Swaroop - vs. - Government of NCT of Delhi reported in A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court 990, in which in paragraph 4, the Apex Court ruled:- "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 Reddy's ( AIR 1962 SC 1788 )(supra), (on which judgment the High Court relied) as under (at p.1791 of AIR): "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 this 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 manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice." (2) Thankappan Nadar and others – vs. - Gopala Krishnan and another reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases(Criminal) 1205 in which the Supreme Court held in paragraph 6 as follows:- "In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the Court's jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to a few decisions rendered by this Court. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to a few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir – v. - Ramdeo Ram ( (1973)2 SCC 583 :1973 SCC(Cri)903) this Court has (in SCC PP.587-88, para 8) observed thus: "This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicating the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision: (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 wished to produce; (iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; (iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial Court or by the appellate Court; and (v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal." The Court further observed:(SCC p.588, para 10) "10. No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial Judge in the case in hand is not perfect or free from flaw and a Court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a Court of appeal and then order a retrial. It is unfortunate that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in the matter of election to the office of village mukhia, should go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court." Further, in paragraph 8, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1998)7 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Crl.)1574 is extracted as follows:- "In Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh this Court after considering various decisions, observed as under: (SCC pp.226-27, para 9) "9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the 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 is 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 has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section(3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial." 9. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5/accused 1 to 4 vehemently contended that in proving the case of the prosecution there is no evidence excepting the evidence of P.W.1 who, it is claimed, is the injured in the occurrence and as such, his evidence being interested, no reliance can be placed upon such evidence. The learned counsel also argued that P.W.7 doctor attached to the Government General Hospital, Madras has stated in his evidence that P.W.1, who was admitted for treatment on 5.4.2000 at 11.55 p.m., has informed that he was attacked at 11.30 p.m. during the said night by 6 known persons with knives, whereas it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 was attacked at the time of occurrence by the accused 1 to 4. It is then argued by the learned counsel that since in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that he came to know about the names of the accused after the occurrence by enquiring the persons of his area and therefore, much reliance cannot be placed about the complaint Ex.P-1 in which the names of the accused have been mentioned and which could have been prepared on 7.4.2000. The learned counsel further submitted that no identification parade has been conducted to identify the accused by P.Ws.2 and 8. As regards the weapon M.Os.1 to 4, which according to the prosecution, have been used at the time of occurrence by the accused 1 to 4 to attack P.W.1 which have been denied by P.W.1 that he was not attacked by the said weapons and the recovery of weapons M.Os.1 to 4 also have not been proved by examining mahazar witness. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the judgment of the trial Court acquitting all the accused need not be interfered with. 10. The learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent argued that though the eye witness P.W.8 not supported the case of the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 also turned hostile, there is satisfactory evidence let in on the side of the prosecution warranting conviction of the accused. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that P.W.1, the injured witness, has clearly narrated the incident which evidence tallies with the F.I.R. and medical evidence. 11. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 5.4.2000 at 11.30 p.m. at the junction of Karunanidhi Road and in front of the shop of the de facto complainant who has been examined as P.W.1. Immediately after the occurrence, he was taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras for treatment and after one hour he was taken from the said hospital to Government Stanley Hospital, Madras for further treatment and when he was in the Government General Hospital, Madras, the police came and enquired and he gave the complaint which was reduced into writing under Ex.P-1. 12. 12. In the complaint, Ex.P-1, it is stated that on 5.4.2000 at 11.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was sweeping in front of his shop, Prakash alias Francis, arrayed as the first accused and his elder brother Jayaraj, arrayed as the second accused and his brothers-in-law by name Venkat alias Venkatesan and Velu, arrayed as accused 3 and 4 respectively, each armed with knife restrained P.W.1 and Prakash alias Francis arrayed as the first accused by stating cut him with knife and since he moved a little, it caused injury on his right knee and he fell down. The second accused Jayaraj cut P.W.1 on his head. The first accused again cut with knife on his right hand, because of which three fingers, viz., centre finger, ring finger and little finger on the right hand severed. The third accused and the fourth accused cut P.W.1 on his right hand and right leg. The first accused and the second accused also cut P.W.1 on his left hand and left leg. On his raising noise, P.W.2 Shiva and P.W.8 Subramani came to the scene of occurrence and when they questioned about the attacking, the accused by threatening with knives had run away. P.W.2 Shiva along with one Saravanan took P.W.1 in an auto rickshaw to the Government General Hospital, Madras and admitted him. 13. The complaint was registered on 6.4.2000 at 2.00 a.m. The F.I.R. Ex.P-4 registered on the basis of the complaint Ex.P-1 was received by the V Metropolitan Magistrate at 3.35 p.m. on 7.4.2000. Therefore, there is no delay in preferring the complaint and registering the F.I.R. 14. The Investigating Officer P.W.10 inspecting the scene of occurrence at 3.00 a.m. on 6.4.2000(mentioned as 5.4.2000 night) prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-5 and rough sketch Ex.P-6. From the observation mahazar Ex.P-5 and rough sketch Ex.P-6 it is seen that there is a corporation electric post with bulb and the street light was burning and also the light was burning in the shop of the P.W.1. In and around there were shops and houses. The occurrence took place in the main road at the junction of Karunanidhi Salai and 5th street. Therefore, P.W.1 could have clearly seen the accused when he was cut by them. In the complaint it is clearly mentioned the names of all the accused and the attack made by each of the accused. 15. The occurrence took place in the main road at the junction of Karunanidhi Salai and 5th street. Therefore, P.W.1 could have clearly seen the accused when he was cut by them. In the complaint it is clearly mentioned the names of all the accused and the attack made by each of the accused. 15. P.W.7 Dr.Periyasamy has stated in his evidence that as mentioned in the accident register extract Ex.P-3 he found the cut injuries on P.W.1. As per Ex.P-3 the following injuries were caused to P.W.1:- "Vertical incised wound left side of head about 10 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Incised wound right elbow – posterior about 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep. Incised wound right elbow – anterior 6 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep. Incised wound right forearm about 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep. Incised wound above right wrist – 6 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. Incised wound right hand root of fingers medial to lateral about 8 cm x cutting little finger, right finger and middle finger (Amputated). Incised wound left forearm – 6 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep. Incised wound left hand-dorsal – 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. Incised wound right knee – 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. Incised wound left leg – 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm" 16. P.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that at the time of occurrence, the first accused cut him with knife on his right elbow, forearm four times and because of the cut on his fingers in the right hand, little finger and next two fingers were hanging. The accused also cut P.W.1 on his left hand back portion of the wrist and forearm. Firstly, the first accused cut P.W.1 followed by the accused 2 and 3 and he fell down with cut injuries. P.W.1 has further stated that he was cut on his head, left knee and back. The fourth accused and the person, who purchased cigarette have been called and all of them escaped in an auto rickshaw, which was hidden near the place of occurrence and driven by one of the accused. Such evidence of P.W.1 tallies with the accident register, in which the injuries caused to P.W.1 have been mentioned. The evidence of P.W.1 tallies with the F.I.R. and the medical evidence. Such evidence of P.W.1 tallies with the accident register, in which the injuries caused to P.W.1 have been mentioned. The evidence of P.W.1 tallies with the F.I.R. and the medical evidence. 17. No doubt, it is stated by P.W.1 that immediately after the occurrence, they went to Sembium Police Station, who advised them to go to the Government General Hospital, Madras for treatment, where he and the persons who accompanied were not examined and that they have also did not give any complaint to the said police station, but from that it cannot be said that there is no truth in the case of the prosecution. 18. Similarly, it cannot be said that since P.W.7, the doctor, has stated in his evidence that he was informed by P.W.1 that he was cut by 6 known persons, there is no truth in the case of prosecution. P.W.7 has clearly stated that P.W.1 was conscious. In the complaint Ex.P-1 and also in his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly stated that one short person came to his shop and purchased cigarette from his shop and after that, the accused, who were hiding near the shop came and cut P.W.1 and after the occurrence, the accused 1 to 3 called the said short person, who purchased cigarette from the shop of P.W.1 and the fourth accused and then escaped in the auto rickshaw. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has also stated that he informed the doctor that he was cut only by 5 persons. 19. No doubt there is some delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Court, but it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as the evidence of the injured witness, P.W.1 tallies with the F.I.R. and the medical evidence. 20. The denial of P.W.1 that M.Os.1 to 4 were not the weapons used by the accused to cut him and which seizure has also been not proved by the prosecution are not very much material, since there is satisfactory evidence let in on the side of prosecution through the injured witness P.W.1 supported by the F.I.R. and the medical evidence. 21. P.W.1 has clearly stated that at the time of occurrence, he was cut by the accused 1 to 3. P.W.1 has not implicated the 4th accused and another short person with regard to overt-acts caused to him. 21. P.W.1 has clearly stated that at the time of occurrence, he was cut by the accused 1 to 3. P.W.1 has not implicated the 4th accused and another short person with regard to overt-acts caused to him. But there is clear evidence let in on the prosecution side with regard to the grievous hurt caused by the accused 1 to 3 to P.W.1 with dangerous weapons and as such, the offences levelled against are made out against the respondents 2 to 4/accused 1 to 3. Despite such evidence, the trial Court without considering all these aspects acquitted the accused 1 to 3 also which resulted in the miscarriage of justice and there have been glaring illegality in the judgment of the trial Court by shutting out the clear evidence of P.W.1 and F.I.R. and the medical evidence and the material evidence of P.W.1 have been overruled by the trial Court. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court so far as the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3 is to be set aside. 22. In the light of the discussions made above, the finding of the trial Court, which resulted in the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 4/accused 1 to 3, is set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai for retrial. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai is directed to dispose of the case in S.C.No.351 of 2001 in accordance with law.