JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This is an informant's revision against Judgment and order dated 08.02.1995 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. Case No. 339 of 1994 (Trial No. 34 of 1994) acquitting the Opp. parties 1 to 7-accused persons of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 341/307/379/34 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that on 12.11.1993 injured P.W.7 along with one Rangadhar Dalai had gone to Korai police station to lodge report against the accused persons. When they were returning home after getting down at Baitarani Road Station, on the way the accused persons committed the alleged offences. Informant P.W.1 came to know from RWs. 3 and 4 that the accused persons had assaulted his father. He went to the place of occurrence and found his father bleeding and unconscious. After regaining his sense P.W. 7 alleged that the accused persons had beaten him with stick blows until he fell senseless. Thereafter the informant P.W.1 lodged report before the O.I.C. of the police station, who entrusted P.W.10 to take up Investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded complete denial to the charges. 3. In order to substantiate the allegations prosecution examined 10 witnesses, P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are post occurrence witnesses, P.W.2 is also a son of P.W.7. P.W. 6 happens to be P.W. 1's cousin brother and he claimed to be an occurrence witness. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the doctors who treated and examined injured P.W. 7. P.W. 10 was the investigating police officer. The prosecution also relied upon the documents marked Ext.1 to 5. No evidence-oral or documentary-was adduced on behalf of the defence. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Court below found that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges against the accused persons in view of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the testimonies of the witnesses including that of the injured. 4. Referring to the impugned Judgment, it is contended that the learned Court below should have accepted the evidence of the inured in order to hold that the prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts in view of medical corroboration available from P.Ws. 8 and 9. 4. Referring to the impugned Judgment, it is contended that the learned Court below should have accepted the evidence of the inured in order to hold that the prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts in view of medical corroboration available from P.Ws. 8 and 9. In reply, it is submitted that upon analysis of evidence on record, the learned Court below has rightly held the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to be not reliable in order to sustain conviction. 5. Admittedly, the informant P.W.1 is not an eye-witness. It is stated that he was informed about the occurrence by P.W.6 when he was in the Baitarani Road Bazar. He went to the spot and found P.W.7 senseless. He nourished him with water upon which P.W.7 regained his sense. P.W.1 testified that he heard the entire occurrence from P.W.7. The testimony of P.W.1 in Court is not at all consistent with his earlier version contained in the F.I.R. Ext.1. In the F.I.R. he did not mention to have heard about the occurrence from P.W.6. It was specifically stated therein that P.W.1 learnt regarding the occurrence from P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, and 5 were also not occurrence witnesses. P.W.2, who happens to be P.W.1's brother, stated that he was present with P.W.1 in the Bazar when P.W.6 came and told them regarding the occurrence. Though P.W.2 stated to have accompanied P.W.1 to the spot and also to have, along with P.W.1, taken P.W.7 to the police station, he did not make any allegation against any of the accused persons. P.W.3 who was not declared to be a hostile witness also did not make any allegation against any of the accused persons. On the contrary, he stated that immediately after the occurrence P.W.7, on being asked, told that he fell down on the big stones and sustained injuries. P.W.3 also stated that he had not seen P.W.6 either at the spot or at Bazar where the alleged occurrence took place. Evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 also did not incriminate any of the accused persons in any manner. P.W.6 who happens to be brother of P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the occurrence took place when he along with P.W.7 was returning to their village from Baitarani Bazar. He testified that 7 to 8 persons armed with lathis etc. Evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 also did not incriminate any of the accused persons in any manner. P.W.6 who happens to be brother of P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the occurrence took place when he along with P.W.7 was returning to their village from Baitarani Bazar. He testified that 7 to 8 persons armed with lathis etc. came in front of them. P.W.7 enquired about their identity and P.W.6 replied that they were their co-villagers. Apprehending trouble P.W.7 wanted to go back to the Bazar. However, accused Sada Mallick and Gada Mallick caught hold P.W.7's arms and asked P.W.7 to come to their Sahi. Accused Babuli Mallick caught hold P.W.7's leg and tried to lift him. In the process P.W.7's artificial leg fell down. Accused persons Bijoy Biswal and Arjuna Sethi pressed the mouths of P.W.7 and P.W.6 in order to prevent them from raising hullah. When P.W.7 fell down, accused Bijoy Biswal assaulted him by means of an iron rod which struck on his left hand. P.W.7 sustained two blows, raised hullah and become senseless upon which all the accused persons fled away. P.W.6 further deposed that he requested P.W.3 and 4, who were passing by the spot, to call P.W.1 and also accompanied P.W.3 to the Bazar where he met P.W.1. On being told regarding the assault on P.W.7, P.W.1 came to the spot. The injured P.W.7 himself deposed that he had been to Korai Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. against the accused persons since they had threatened to assault him. On his return, he got down at Baitarani Railway Station and went to Bazaar. The occurrence took place at a distance of 150 cubits from the Railway Station when he along with P.W.6 was returning to their village by walk. Accused persons crossed and went ahead of them. P.W.7 found the accused persons armed with sticks, etc. Apprehending trouble P.W.7 told P.W.6 to return back to the Bazaar. However, accused persons Gada Mallick and Sada Mallick caught-hold of his hand when they were about to return towards Bazaar. They asked P.W.7 to go to their Sahi. P.W.7 expressed his inability to go to the Sahi of the accused persons upon which accused Bijoy directed others to physically lift him and accused Babuli Mallick caught-hold of his legs and lifted him. P.W.7 raised hullah and accused Bijoy Biswal pressed his mouth. Accused Bijoy was holding lathi. They asked P.W.7 to go to their Sahi. P.W.7 expressed his inability to go to the Sahi of the accused persons upon which accused Bijoy directed others to physically lift him and accused Babuli Mallick caught-hold of his legs and lifted him. P.W.7 raised hullah and accused Bijoy Biswal pressed his mouth. Accused Bijoy was holding lathi. After sometime P.W.7 was thrown by the accused persons and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused Bijoy Biswal dealt him two blows on his left arm and another blow on the left side waist by means of iron rod. P.W.7 testified to have sustained fracture injury on his left hand. He also alleged that the accused persons assaulted him with fist blows and stick on different parts of his body as a result of which he became senseless. He asserted to have regained his sense at Jaipur Hospital. It has been brought out in evidence that P.W.1 had not stated before the I.O. P.W.10 that he heard regarding the occurrence from P.W.6, or that the accused persons took away P.W.7's artificial leg and hand. Also, it has been elicited in evidence that P.W.6 had not stated before P.W.10 that accused Bijoy assaulted P.W.7 by an iron rod, or that accused Arjuna pressed his mouth. P.W.10 also stated that P.W.7 had not stated before him that ail the accused persons assaulted him, or that accused Bijoy instigated other accused persons to lift him, or that he had been to Korai Police Station to lodge F.I.R. against the accused persons because they threatened to assault him, or that accused Bijoy dealt blow by means of iron rod on his left side waist. It is obvious from the discussion made above that P.W.6 was initially portrayed as a post-occurrence witness. However, in course of trial, the prosecution made attempt to confer the status of-an eye-witness on P.W.6. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.7 stated to have sustained about 15 bleeding injuries on his person. However, P.W.8 deposed to have found only two swellings and one abrasion on P.W.7. However, in course of trial, the prosecution made attempt to confer the status of-an eye-witness on P.W.6. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.7 stated to have sustained about 15 bleeding injuries on his person. However, P.W.8 deposed to have found only two swellings and one abrasion on P.W.7. No weapon of offence or blood stained wearing apparel was seized by the I.O. In the background of P.W.3's statement that soon after the occurrence P.W.7, instead of making any allegations against any of the accused persons, told that he sustained injuries due to fall on big stones, the infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence have rightly led the learned trial Court to hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence so as to sustain conviction in a criminal trial. Learned trial Court having arrived at his conclusion upon analysis of the evidence record, the finding does not appear to be unreasonable. 6. In absence of legal infirmities either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for interference with the order of acquittal in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 401 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Jagannath Choudhary and others 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 statue 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, and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, as also in Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. In D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla 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 possesses 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. 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 the discussion made above, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed