Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Lazar Bara Singh has filed this revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 3.2.1992 passed by Shri V.B. Handa, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in case FIR No. 84 dated 2.5.1990 under Sections 314 and 120-B IPC Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, vide which respondents Joy Christopher and Sabina were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that both the respondents were employed in CMC and Hospital, Ludhiana. Joy Christopher was a Laboratory Technician, while Sabina was a Nurse. They are brother and sister, respectively. Sabina was friendly with Miss Sunila Singh (deceased), who was also employed as Staff Nurse in the same Hospital. Sabina allured Miss Sunila Singh to marry her brother Joy Christopher. They started meeting each other and became friendly. Then Miss Sunila Singh conceived from Joy Christopher. Both the respondents then conspired to terminate the pregnancy of Miss Sunila Singh. Miss Sunila Singh did not want to terminate her pregnancy. They took her to the nursing home of Dr. Nauharia situated in Jamalpur, Ludhiana. Thereafter, they took her to Dayanad Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for treatment, where she died on 30.4.1990 at 9.00 a.m. Lazar Bara Singh - petitioner reported the matter to the police. His statement Ex. PR was recorded on 2.5.1990 and the case was registered. 3. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Miss Sunila Singh was conducted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. After due investigation, both the respondents were challaned for the offences punishable under Sections 314 and 120-B IPC. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Charge was framed against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 314 and 120-B IPC. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution at the trial examined PW-1 Dr. A.S. Sahni, PW-2 Mrs. M. Frank, PW-3 Miss E. Hyratt, PW-4 Constable Jagjit Singh, PW-5 ASI Om Parkash, PW-6 Head Constable Hardip Singh, PW-7 Head Constable Onkar Singh, PW-8 Piara Masih, PW-9 Lazar Bara Singh, PW-10 Major Baldev Singh, PW-11 Mohinder Singh alias Devinder Singh, PW-12 Constable Varinder Kumar, PW-13 Constable Sukhwinder Singh, PW-14 Mrs. Ram Sofat, PW-15 Dr. Satish Nauharia, PW-16 Dr. Savita Nauharia and PW-17 ASI Amar Singh. They proved various documents on the file. 6. Ram Sofat, PW-15 Dr. Satish Nauharia, PW-16 Dr. Savita Nauharia and PW-17 ASI Amar Singh. They proved various documents on the file. 6. Statements of the respondents were recorded on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. Joy Christopher - respondent stated that he was innocent. The case against him is false. According to him, Dr. Satish Nauharia and his wife Dr. Savita Nauharia with a view to save their skin deposed falsely against him. He admitted that he had intimacy with Miss Sunila Singh (deceased). They had decided to marry. When the CMC authorities came to know about their intimacy and the fact about the pregnancy of Miss Sunila Singh, she was forced to resign her job. Miss Sunila Singh then applied for a job in Mohan Dai Cancer Hospital, Ludhiana representing her to be an unmarried girl. In order to save this situation that she may not be taken to be a girl of immoral character in view of her pregnancy, she got her pregnancy terminated. There was massive bleeding in CMC Hospital. She was taken to Nauharia Nursing Home. Her condition became worse. She was then taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital in order to save her life. She could not be saved and she died. 7. Sabina - respondent denied all the allegations. She stated that she was falsely implicated in the case, being the sister of Joy Christopher. 8. The respondents had adduced no evidence in defence. 9. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the evidence has been scrutinised with their help. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court had an erroneous approach to the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by it are untenable in law. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. Sunil Kumar brother of the deceased, could not be examined. The prosecution had furnished cogent reason for his non-examination. Joy Christopher - respondent had admitted certain facts. The trial Court ought to have drawn presumption that he was eager to get the pregnancy of the deceased terminated. The decreased never agreed for termination of her pregnancy. The trial Court wrongly concluded that Dr. Satish Nauharia and his wife Dr. Savita Nauharia were concerned with the fatal abortion of the deceased. The trial Court was also not justified in acquitting the respondents. The decreased never agreed for termination of her pregnancy. The trial Court wrongly concluded that Dr. Satish Nauharia and his wife Dr. Savita Nauharia were concerned with the fatal abortion of the deceased. The trial Court was also not justified in acquitting the respondents. If both these doctors were responsible for terminating her pregnancy in any illegal manner, they should have been summoned to face trial. Hence, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the respondents be punished for the offences, which were proved against them. 11. This is a revision petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant. The law is well-settled that revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the complainant has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases, where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. There is nothing as such in this case. The trial Court has not relied upon the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, acquitted the respondents. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be re-appreciated in revisional jurisdiction and a reverse finding cannot be recorded that witnesses are reliable and their evidence warrants conviction. The order of acquittal in this case does not warrant interference, because there is no manifest illegality and gross miscarriage of justice. 12. A few cases on this subject need reference here :- In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 61, it was laid down by the Apex Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision against an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manfiest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. 13 In the case of Satyajit Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, 2005(1) RCR)(Crl.) 723, the Apex Court laid down that revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of the complainant has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. 14. The ld. 14. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner cited the case of Ram Briksh Singh and others v. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(2) RCR(Crl.) 182. The Apex Court laid down that revisional Court cannot set aside the order of acquittal on appreciation of evidence, but it can set aside the order on basis of material evidence, which was available on record, but over-looked by the trial Court. In this case, the trial Court did not over-look any evidence. Every aspect of the case was dealt with and all the evidence on record was discussed. 15. There are no adequate grounds for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal, which is sell-founded. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.