JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - The Petitioner, who was the informant, P.W.1 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1994 (S.C.107 of 1994 G.D.C.) has challenged in this revision the legality of Judgment and order dated 27.1.1995 passed therein by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur acquitting the opposite parties 1 to 6-accused persons of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I.P.C.'). 2. Prosecution case was that the alleged occurrence took place on 8.10.1993 in between 10.30 to 11.00 A.M. when the deceased was standing with his bicycle in front of the tea stall of P.W.2. It was alleged that the opposite parties-accused persons reached there in a bullock cart raising hue and cry and hurled abuses at the deceased. Thereafter, they assaulted the deceased by means of weapons inflicting serious bleeding injuries. It was asserted that on the date of occurrence itself at about 9.30 A.M. there was quarrel between the accused persons and deceased when the deceased asked accused Gadu ' Raghu Patra to refund Rs. 200/- which he had borrowed from the community fund. On the basis of F.I.R. Ext. 1 lodged by deceased's younger brother P.W.1, the case was registered and investigation was taken up. The deceased was removed to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur where he was examined and medically treated by doctors including P.W.5. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 9.10.1993. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined and seizures were effected. Also, dead body of the deceased was subjected to inquest under Ext. 2 by police and post mortem examination under Ext. 5 by P.W.6. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons and accordingly, they faced the trial. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all and also relied upon the documents marked Exts. 1 to 8 and material exhibits M.Os. I to III. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. However, documents marked Exts. 'A' to 'D' were admitted into evidence on their behalf. lnformant-P.W.1 was not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 3, 7 and 8 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5 and 6, as stated earlier, are doctors. P.Ws. 9 to 11 are police officers who are associated with the investigation of the case. P.W.4 was a seizure witness. lnformant-P.W.1 was not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 3, 7 and 8 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 5 and 6, as stated earlier, are doctors. P.Ws. 9 to 11 are police officers who are associated with the investigation of the case. P.W.4 was a seizure witness. On analysis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution were not reliable as their evidence suffered from discrepancies on material particulars, that there was unexplained delay of nine hours in lodging of the F.I.R., that injuries on accused Gadu ' Raghu remained unexplained, that there was unexplained delay of one and half days in sending the F.I.R. to Court, that the prosecution story depicted in the F.I.R. was completely at variance from the story unfolded during the trial, that the oral evidence was inconsistent with medical evidence and that the facts and circumstances deposed to by the witnesses were not consistent with ordinary human behaviour. All these findings led the learned trial Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons for which they were not found guilty of the charges. 3. In assailing the impugned Judgment and order it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the learned trial Court committed illegality by laying emphasis on minor contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of witnesses which are natural and bound' to occur. It was strenuously contended that in view of inconsistencies between medical evidence and ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses, the learned trial Court should have ignored the expert opinion and relied upon the ocular version of the eye-witnesses as well as intrinsic worth and value of the testimonial evidence adduced in Court instead of finding fault with testimonies of the eye-witnesses upon reference to documents prepared by the investigating agency. It was further argued that the learned trial Court should not have suspected the testimonies of the eye-witnesses who were not named in the F.I.R. in view of the fact that the informant was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence of the eye-witnesses revealed that the accused persons encircled the deceased and dealt fatal blows on him and in such circumstances it was natural for the eye-witnesses to have failed to see the counter assault and injuries on accused Gadu ' Raghu. The evidence of the eye-witnesses revealed that the accused persons encircled the deceased and dealt fatal blows on him and in such circumstances it was natural for the eye-witnesses to have failed to see the counter assault and injuries on accused Gadu ' Raghu. It was further contended that under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Court below should have held that delay of nine hours in lodging of the F.I.R. had been well explained by the prosecution. The learned Court below also should not have found fault with the prosecution case as because there was delay on the part of the police to despatch the F.I.R. to Court. It was argued that the impugned Judgment being the result of misreading and non-appreciation of evidence on record is liable to be set aside. 4. In defending the impugned Judgment and order it was contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-accused persons that the learned trial Court upon cogent analysis and critical appreciation of the evidence on record has found the entire prosecution case to be suspicious in view of several circumstances. There was material contradictions between the medical evidence and ocular account of the witnesses. The eye-witnesses were not found to be reliable. The prosecution case as depicted at the earliest in the F.I.R. was at variance with the ocular account of the witnesses depicted in Court and also inconsistent with the medical evidence. Inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. at the police station and despatch of the F.I.R. to Court remained unexplained. The prosecution also did not explain multiple injuries on one of the accused persons and thereby suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. In such circumstances, there was no scope to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-accused persons as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the State and upon close scrutiny of evidence on record, it is observed that there is no dispute that the deceased met with homicidal death due to fatal injuries caused by assault by means of weapons. But, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused persons who were the authors of the injuries to which the deceased succumbed. Though the deceased's brother informant. But, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused persons who were the authors of the injuries to which the deceased succumbed. Though the deceased's brother informant. P.W.1 gave a vivid account of the occurrence and its background in the F.I.R., stated to have been lodged after learning regarding the occurrence from the co-villagers, he simply deposed in Court that at about 5.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence, he was told by his cousins Budhia Patra and Chandramani Patra that the accused persons jointly killed his brother on the village street in front of the tea stall of P.W.2. In the very next sentence he testified that he was informed by his cousins that the deceased was about to die and was lying on the street upon which he rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying on the street in a seriously injured condition. He found cut injuries on the deceased's forehead, back side of the head, and left ankle joint and the left eye had become black and bulgy. He deposed to have seen the deceased at 7.30 P.M. On enquiry he could gather that the accused persons had assaulted and inflicted injuries on the deceased. He proceeded to the police station and lodged an F.I.R. under Ext. 1. He also witnessed inquest over the dead body of the deceased under the inquest report Ext. 2. In his cross-examination only P.W.1 stated that he heard that there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused Gadu ' Raghu at about 9.00 A.M. on the date of occurrence over refund of loan of Rs. 200/- and that assault on the deceased took place when he was sitting on the back side verandah of Balaram Patra. In the F.I.R. Ext. 1 lodged long nine hours after the occurrence on the basis of information gathered from the co-villagers, it was mentioned by P.W.1 that there was minor quarrel between the deceased and accused Gadu ' Raghu at about 9.30 A.M. on the date of occurrence when the deceased asked accused Gadu ' Raghu to refund Rs. 200/- which he had borrowed from the community fund. The occurrence took place at about 11.00 A.M. when the deceased was sitting on the back side verandah of the house of Balaram Patra. 200/- which he had borrowed from the community fund. The occurrence took place at about 11.00 A.M. when the deceased was sitting on the back side verandah of the house of Balaram Patra. Accused persons, Gadu ' Raghu being armed with sword, Saiba as well as Krishna being armed with lathis and Lachaya being armed with axes dragged the deceased from the verandah to the road and assaulted and caused injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Accused Sasi assaulted on the left eye of the deceased with a brick. In the F.I.R. it was also asserted that P.W.1's father as well as co-villagers Rameya Patra and Badri Das and others including P.W.3 Santosh Sethy witnessed the occurrence. Inspite of the allegation made in the F.I.R. that the deceased was assaulted not only by lathis but also by sword and axes, all the eye-witnesses examined in Court testified that all the accused persons except Sasi were armed with lathis. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the deceased was sitting on the verandah of the house of Balaram Patra from where accused persons dragged him to the road and assaulted him. However, the eye-witnesses testified that the deceased was assaulted while he was standing in front of the tea stall of P.W.2. In the inquest report Ext. 2, dead body challan Ext. 6 as well as seizure lists Ext. 3/1 and Ext. 10 prepared soon after the occurrence it has been mentioned that the deceased was assaulted by means of swords and axes also. However, none of the eye-witnesses while deposing in Court testified that the deceased was assaulted by any sharp cutting weapon. P.W.5 is the doctor, who had examined, and also was associated with the treatment of, the deceased. Apart from other injuries, P.W.5 found the deceased to have sustained one cut incised wound on forehead on the left frontal region and another cut incised wound over left parietal occipital region. He testified that both the cut injuries could be caused by sharp cutting weapons. Though it was stated by P.W.5 that incised wound could be caused by blunt weapon like bamboo lathi as the site of injury was on the scalp, he was constrained to admit in his cross-examination that an incised wound means a wound with clean cut margin, and usually caused by sharp cutting weapon. Though it was stated by P.W.5 that incised wound could be caused by blunt weapon like bamboo lathi as the site of injury was on the scalp, he was constrained to admit in his cross-examination that an incised wound means a wound with clean cut margin, and usually caused by sharp cutting weapon. He further deposed in his cross-examination that if a wound was caused by a blunt weapon it would be lacerated one, even on a bony surface, except in certain circumstances like flashed knee or scalp. However, he admitted that such wounds on bony places caused by blunt weapon would be incised looking wounds and not incised wounds. Though P.W.5 deposed that cut wounds on the deceased could be caused by seized bamboo lathis, M.Os.-II and III were admitted by him to be round shaped without any cutting and lacerated edge. Therefore, absence of allegation by the eye-witnesses regarding assault on the deceased by any sharp cutting weapon and existence of incised wounds on the deceased amount to irreconciliable inconsistency between medical evidence and oral evidence. Though, father of the deceased and informant Budu Patra had been named as eye-witness in the F.I.R. he was not examined whereas P.Ws. 2 and 8 who were not named as eye witnesses in the F.I.R. were examined as eye-witnesses in Court. Non-examination of deceased's father who was stated to be an eye-witness certainly raised suspicion regarding the conduct of the prosecution inasmuch as he would have been the most material witness to depose regarding the circumstances under which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. P.W.2, not named in the F.I.R. as an eye-witness, stated that after taking his breakfast and tea in his shop when the deceased was standing in front of his shop, the accused persons suddenly reached there in a bullock cart raising a hue and cry and hurling abuees at the deceased. The accused persons were shouting that they w*re carrying accused Gadu ' Raghu to hospital. Seeing the deceased, the accused persons encircled him and assaulted him on the leg, forehead and back side of the head by means of lathis. Accused Sasi Patra, picked up a brick bat and hit the deceased on the left eye. The accused persons were shouting that they w*re carrying accused Gadu ' Raghu to hospital. Seeing the deceased, the accused persons encircled him and assaulted him on the leg, forehead and back side of the head by means of lathis. Accused Sasi Patra, picked up a brick bat and hit the deceased on the left eye. It was brought out in the evidence that P.W.2 had stated before the I.O. that while the accused persons were carrying accused Raghu in a bullock cart, the deceased came to their front with bicycle. Though P.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that accused Raghu was sleeping in bullock cart, he expressed his inability to say if accused Raghu had sustained any injury. P.W.3 testified in his examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence at 11.00 A.M. hearing hue and cry he came out from his house and saw the accused persons were assaulting the deceased by means to lathis. He also alleged that accused Sasi hit the deceased by means of a brick. On being asked in course of cross-examination, P.W.3 expressed his inability to say if the deceased had assaulted accused Raghu. It has also been brought out in the evidence that P.W.3 had stated before the I.O. that accused Raghu only chased the deceased to assault him and that he had not stated before the I.O. that accused Raghu also assaulted the deceased. P.W.7 not only claimed to have seen the occurrence but also testified to have witnessed the quarrel and fight between the deceased and accused Gadu ' Raghu prior to the occurrence. He testified that when the deceased demanded refund of Rs. 200/- from accused Gadu ' Raghu a quarrel ensued which ultimately gave rise to a free fight in course of which both of them beat each other near his house. The occurrence took place when he was returning with grass on his head. He stated that the accused persons assaulted the deceased by means of lathis in front of the hotel of P.W.2 and that accused Sasi assaulted the deceased on his face by means of a brick bat. In course of his cross-examination, P.W.7 appears to have, initially, denied to all the questions including the relationship among his co-villagers put by the defence. In course of his cross-examination, P.W.7 appears to have, initially, denied to all the questions including the relationship among his co-villagers put by the defence. He also expressed his inability to s'ay if accused Gadu ' Raghu had sustained any bleeding injury in course of hit fight with the deceased. It may be observed that in case accused Gadu ' Raghu sustained any injury in course of his fight with the deceased prior to the occurrence, P.W.7 would have noticed such injury, and in case accused Gadu ' Raghu did not sustain any injury at that time, the only explanation is that he sustained the injury in course of the occurrence which fact was suppressed by the prosecution. It is also observed that P.W.7 testified in his cross-examination that the deceased was assaulted while he was going to take tea. A bullock cart was kept near the tea stall and accused Gadu ' Raghu was sitting thereon. Such graphic account of the occurrence on the part of P.W.7 belies his assertion to the effect that he chanced" upon the occurrence while returning home after collecting grass which he was carrying on his head. In course of cross-examination, he testified in a manner as if he was present at the spot before the occurrence started. P.W.8 admitted in his cross-examination that accused Kastu had filed a criminal case against him. Though he denied to the suggestion that he was found guilty in that case, Ext. 'D' the certified copy of the Judgment in G.R. Case No. 183 of 1992 of the Court of J.M.F.C, Berhampur contradicts such assertion. P.W.8 also testified that the accused persons were armed with lathis and accused Sasi was holding a brick, and that they assaulted the deceased. Taking into account the above referred infirmities and other inconsistencies in the evidence of each of the eye-witnesses, the learned trial Court found none of the four eye-witnesses to be reliable and trustworthy. P.W.2 testified that at the time of occurrence there was free movement of the villagers near the place of occurrence. However, the prosecution did not choose to examine any firm witness. P.W.2 testified that at the time of occurrence there was free movement of the villagers near the place of occurrence. However, the prosecution did not choose to examine any firm witness. Non-examination of deceased's father assumes importance in view of the fact that though he was stated to be present near the spot at the time of occurrence, there was absolutely no explanation as to why the deceased was left lying at the spot till the Investigating Officer P.W.9 arrived there after lodging of the F.I.R. at 8.00 P.M. in the evening. The assertion of the prosecution to the effect that the deceased was left on the road lying with serious injuries for about more than nine hours does not appeal to reason especially when the deceased's father was very much present at the scene of occurrence and other relations of the deceased were aware of the occurrence. The conduct of the deceased's father and cousins who went all the way to Berhampur to apprise the informant regarding the occurrence has, therefore, been rightly held by the learned trial Court to be contrary to normal human behaviour. All such circumstances coupled with the circumstances of inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and despatch of the F.I.R. to Court rightly led the learned trial Court to suspect that the F.I.R. prepared after deliberation contained tainted version of the occurrence and also that the F.I.R. was not lodged at the stated date and time. The suspicion is further strengthened by non-explanation of injuries on accused Gadu ' Raghu. It may be pointed that according to P.W.11 accused Raghu Patra had appeared at the police station at about 1.00 P.M. on 8.10.1993 and reported that he was assaulted by the deceased resulting in injuries on mouth, nose, cheek and chest in connection with which a Sessions Diary Entry was stated to have been made. Though prosecution asserted that lathis M.Os.-II and III were seized from the house of accused Raghu and at the instance of accused Saiba Patra, there is no evidence to support such claim. Moreover, seizure of lathis, which are common household implements in villages, was not by itself an incriminating circumstance. 6. In Jagannath Choudhary and Ors. v. Ramayan Singh and Anr. 2002 SCC 1181, it has been held: 10. Moreover, seizure of lathis, which are common household implements in villages, was not by itself an incriminating circumstance. 6. In Jagannath Choudhary and Ors. v. Ramayan Singh and Anr. 2002 SCC 1181, it has been held: 10. While it is true and now well settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power u/s 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodized by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, ; Logendra Nath Jha and Others Vs. Shri Polailal Biswas Logendra Nath Jha and Others Vs. Shri Polailal Biswas, and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, as also in Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can be said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 11. The High Court possess a general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications - so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore. 7. In view of infirmities and lack of cogent evidence to support the prosecution case as noticed above, the impugned Judgment and order is found to be based on cogently assigned reasons immune from interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed