Judgment : 1. This revision is directed against the Judgement of the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Pattukkottai in C.A.No. 37/2005 dated 16.8.2005, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for 1 year, Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur in C.C.No. 232/2002 by judgement dated 6.6.2005. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is briefly as follows:- a) P.W.1 Ramalingam is the resident of Kolakudi. On 24.5.2002, the marriage of Kathirvel was celebrated at Thiruchotruthurai and he attended the marriage. The accused Senthilkumar and Saminathan came to that marriage. After consuming liquor, both of them created trouble in the meal section. On 25.5.2002, at 6.00 p.m., the reception was celebrated at Kathirvels house at Porakudi. When P.W.1 was writing Moi the accused Senthilkumar came and spoken to him in a filthy language. When P.W.1 told him that when the matter was settled and questioned the accused and told him to go out from there. For that, the accused attacked P.W.1 with soda Bottle. Thereby, he sustained injury on left thigh and at that time the second accused came with knife and stabbed on his left side of rib. When P.W.1s brother Devaraj questioned, A3 attacked him with wood on his head. A4 came with aruval and threatened them to murder them. P.Ws.1 and 2 who were injured went to the Medical College hospital for treatment. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 were the residents of Kollukdui present at that time. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the residents of Porakudi. b) P.W.8, Dr. Ramasamy who was working in the medical college hospital examined P.W.3 on 25.5.2002 and he gave the Wound Certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he found the following injuries:- Injuries:- “Laceration wound at temporal region 4 × 2 × 1 cm Pupil - Normal” P.W.9 examined P.W.1 and gave Ex.P.4 wherein, he found the following injuries:- Injuries:- “Laceration wound at thigh 5 × 2 × 1 cm. Laceration wound at chest 4 × 2 × 1cm” c) P.W.10 was the Head Constable at Ayyampettai Police Station. Laceration wound at chest 4 × 2 × 1cm” c) P.W.10 was the Head Constable at Ayyampettai Police Station. On 26.5.2002, when he received the message from Thanjavur Medical College Hospital he proceeded to there and obtained a complaint form P.W.1 and returned to the station at 14.30 hrs and registered a case in Cr.No.154 of 2002 under Sections 294(b), 324, 323, 506(2) I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P.5, the printed F.I.R. and examined witness P.W.6 Murugesan and prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.6. Then he recorded the statements of Devandran, Gunasekaran, Muthukumar, Murugesan. Then he arrested the accused A2, A4 on 28.5.2002 at 0.30 a.m. near Ayyampettai Anna Statue and arrested the accused A1 and A3 at Porakudi Railway Station and remaded them to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, he placed papers before P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained wound certificate of P.W.1 He filed charge sheet against a) A1 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 I.P.C. b) A2 under Sections 294(b), 324 I.P.C. c) A3 under Sections 294(b), 323 I.P.C. d) A4 under Sections 294(b), 506 (2) I.P.C. 3. Before the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to 6 were marked on the side of prosecution. On the side of defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 4. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate found the first and second accused under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo three months S.I. and for the third accused found guilty under Section 323 I.P.C. and imposed a fine of Rs.750/- in default to undergo one month S.I. and for the fourth accused found guilty under Section 506(2) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 1 year S.I. and also pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo three months S.I. 5. Aggrieved over the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the appeal was preferred in C.A.No. 37 of 2005, the learned Fast Track Judge acquitted the fourth accused and confirmed the judgement of the trial court. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. Point for determination:- 1. Whether the revision is maintainablee 6. Aggrieved over the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the appeal was preferred in C.A.No. 37 of 2005, the learned Fast Track Judge acquitted the fourth accused and confirmed the judgement of the trial court. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. Point for determination:- 1. Whether the revision is maintainablee 6. The Powers of revisional Court has been clarified by the Supreme Court in T. N. Dhakkal v. James Bernett (2002) SCC (Cri) 1066 and T. N. Dhakkal v. James Bernett 1448 and in Hydru v. State of Kerala (2004) 13 SCC 374 . 7. In Hydru v. State of Kerala (supra) the Supreme Court had observed as under: “It is well settled that in revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the Subordinate Court. 8. In T. N. Dhakkai v. James Barnett and another (supra) the Supreme Court held as under: “Though the High Court has revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice, but whether or not, there is justification for the exercise of that discretionary jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The controlling power of the High Court being discretionary, it is required to be exercised only in the interest of justice, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of each particular case and not mechanically”. 9. In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B. P. Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (2002) SCC (Cri) 1449 ( Now Jharkhand) and Another : (2002) MLJ (Crl) 939 it was held : “In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted”. 10. The revision petitioners are the accused 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised doubt about the date and place of occurrence. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted”. 10. The revision petitioners are the accused 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised doubt about the date and place of occurrence. According to him, the name of the accused were corrected in F.I.R. There are number of corrections made in F.I.R. These corrections were admitted by P.W.10 and he was unable to give any explanation. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer did not enquire about the corrections in F.I.R. It is clear that the investigation was not properly conducted and the Investigating Officer did not recover the material objects such as Soda Bottle, which was in the scene of occurrence. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to recover the material objects and weapons. P.W.8, Dr. Ramaswamy who was working in the medical college hospital examined P.W.2 on 25.5.2002 and he gave the wound certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he found the following Injuries:- “Laceration wound at temporal region 4 × 2 × 1 cm Pupil - Normal” P.W. examined P.W.1 and gave Ex.P.4 wherein, he found the following injuries :- Injuries : “Laceration wound at thigh 5 × 2 × 1cm. Laceration wound at chest 4 × 2 × 1 cm 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgement of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Muralisamy @ Muralidharan and Others v. State (2007) 1 MLJ 796 wherein the correction in F.I.R. was pointed out. The corrections in the F.I.R. is so obvious on the face of it that no eye could miss it, for which P.W.16, did not come out with any explanation. Further, in this case, though the complaint was given on 26.5.2002 at 14.30 hrs it was sent to the Judicial Magistrate on 27.5.2002 at 10.30 hrs and the police Station was not far away from the residence of the Judicial Magistrate. So, F.I.R. was sent belatedly and it has also created doubt in the prosecution. 12. In the case of Johny and Five others v. State 1990 L.W. (Crl) 175,: (1990) MLJ (Crl) 505 wherein it was observed that the delay in F.I.R. will give rise to suspicion. In this case, F.I.R. reached the Magistrate after a long delay and there was no explanation for the delay. 12. In the case of Johny and Five others v. State 1990 L.W. (Crl) 175,: (1990) MLJ (Crl) 505 wherein it was observed that the delay in F.I.R. will give rise to suspicion. In this case, F.I.R. reached the Magistrate after a long delay and there was no explanation for the delay. Since F.I.R. is suspicious one, the case of the prosecution is bound to fail. 13. Further, there is discrepancy in the scene of occurrence. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place in the marriage panthal but the injured witnesses spoke to the doctor that the occurrence was taken place in the house. There is difference between the house and the marriage panthal. This discrepancy was not explained by the prosecution and this will also affect the prosecution. 14. P.W.1 informed P.W.9, the doctor that he was attacked by known persons with sharp weapons in his house but in his evidence, he has stated that he was attacked by soda bottle. Hence, he had not stated the correct weapon to the doctor. The witnesses P.Ws. 1, 6, 7 spoke about the occurrence but they have not stated like that before the Investigating Officer. There is doubt in F.I.R. All other witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 are not trustworthy. P.W.5 came after incidence. P.W.4 turned hostile. P.W.3, though he claim to be a victim in the hospital he did not take treatment for his injury. This would go to show that there is doubt about his presence along with victim in the scene of occurrence and further he stated in his evidence that he did not see soda bottle in the scene of occurrence. Since the circumstances evidences are not trustworthy the same are liable to be rejected. Since there is doubt in the case of the prosecution the prosecution case is bound to fail. 15. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed by setting aside the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Pattukkottai in C.A.No. 37/2005 dated 16.8.2005, confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for 1 year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur in C.C.No. 232/2002 by judgment dated 6.6.2005.