Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Revision case has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.08.2005 pronounced by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tiruppatur, Vellore District in S.C.No.44/2005. 2. The respondents 2 and 3 herein stood charged and were prosecuted for an offence under Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC before the court below in S.C.No.44/2005. After trial, both were found not guilty and were acquitted of the said offence. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court, one of the injured persons who was examined as P.W.4, has preferred this Criminal Revision Case under Section 401 Cr.P.C. on various grounds set out in the Grounds of Revision. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows: i) The wife of the second respondent (wife of the first accused) was the panchayat president of Mittur Panchayat. But actually the second respondent Sivaji was acting as the President of the said Panchayat. There was a demand for a tap connection for providing water to the veterinary hospital at Mittur. The second respondent Sivaji was not allowing the same to be done. P.W.4-Thiagarajan who was an elected ward member gave the water connection and provided a water tap to the veterinary hospital at Mittur on 15.08.2004. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) were dismantling the said water connection on 16.08.2004, at about 6.00 a.m. P.W.1 and P.W.4, who were proceeding towards Mittur from Vilankuppam for taking tea, came across the said act on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 and questioned the propriety of the same. Immediately the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) with a common intention of causing death to P.W.4-Thiagarajan, attacked P.W.4 and P.W.1-Srinivasan. P.W.4-Thiagarajan was attacked by Sivaji (second respondent/A1) on his forehead with a knife, whereas Kaliappan (3rd respondent/A2) attacked P.W.4 with an iron rod on his right hand. P.W.4-Thiagarajan, after receiving the said injuries fell unconscious and was taken to P.W.8-Singaravelan, a medical practitioner, who gave first aid treatment and sent him to Government Hospital, Tiruppattur. P.W.2-Dr.T.P.Mani treated him at Government Hospital, Tiruppattur and then referred him to Government Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. P.W.4-Thiagarajan, after receiving the said injuries fell unconscious and was taken to P.W.8-Singaravelan, a medical practitioner, who gave first aid treatment and sent him to Government Hospital, Tiruppattur. P.W.2-Dr.T.P.Mani treated him at Government Hospital, Tiruppattur and then referred him to Government Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. P.W.9-Dhandapani, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Karisalampatti police station got the intimation - Ex.P6 from Tiruppattur Government Hospital and went to the said hospital for recording to the statement of P.W.4-Thiagarajan. As P.W.4-Thiagarajan was not in a position to give any statement, statement of P.W.1-Srinivasan marked as Ex.P1 was recorded by him. Based on Ex.P1 he prepared Ex.P5-First Information Report in the printed format and registered a case in Cr.No.324/2004 for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. ii) The respondents 2 and 3 (accused 1 and 2) were also taking treatment in the very same hospital for the injuries sustained by them. Hence P.W.9 recorded the statement of the second respondent herein (Sivaji) marked as Ex.P7, prepared Ex.P8-first information report in the printed format and registered a case in Cr.No.325/2004 on the file of the very same police station for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. iii) Both the cases were investigated by P.W.10-Mohammed Balullah, the then Inspector of Police, Kandili circle. At the conclusion of investigation, he submitted a final report alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC r/w 34 IPC against the respondents 2 and 3 herein in Cr.No.324/2004 and referring Cr.NO.325/2004 as mistake of fact. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tiruppattur took the final report on file as PRC No.17/2004 and committed the case for trial following the procedure prescribed therefor. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.44/2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore District. The same was made over to the trial court viz. the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Thiruppattur for disposal according to law. The trial court framed a charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the respondents 2 and 3 herein (A1 and A2) and tried the case as the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. 5. As many as 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and nine documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 in order to prove the prosecution case. M.O.1 to 3 were also produced. 5. As many as 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and nine documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 in order to prove the prosecution case. M.O.1 to 3 were also produced. The respondents 2 and 3/accused 1 and 2 were also examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Two documents were marked as Ex.D1 and D2 on the side of the accused. At the conclusion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial judge considered the evidence brought before it and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused 1 and 2 giving the benefit of doubt, by its judgment dated 10.08.2005. 6. Challenging the legality and correctness of the above said judgment of acquittal of the trial court, P.W.4-Thiagarajan (the injured) has brought-forth this criminal revision case on various grounds set out in the grounds of criminal revision case. 7. The point that arises for consideration is: whether the judgment of the trial court suffers from any defect or illegality warranting interference by this court in exercise of its power of revision? 8. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by Mr.R.Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the first respondent and by Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court was carried away by the fact that there was no explanation for the injuries sustained by the respondents 2 and 3 (accused 1 and 2) and thus erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that minor or simple injuries sustained by accused need not be explained by the prosecution and acquitting the accused for the non-explanation of such minor injuries would not be proper; that the minor contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were given undue weight by the court below to arrive at a conclusion that there was a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version; that a scrutiny of the judgment of the trial court and the evidence adduced on the prosecution side would make it clear that the finding of the trial court was perverse; that the acquittal of the accused resulted in miscarriage of justice and that hence the judgment of the trial court should be interfered with and set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the first respondent (State) would contend that the court below, on a proper appreciation of evidence, came to a correct conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; that the finding of the court below that there were material contradictions which would give rise to a reasonable suspicion regarding the prosecution version cannot be termed incorrect or defective, much less perverse and that hence the criminal revision case deserves to be dismissed. It has also been contended that in the absence of any legal infirmity, either in the procedure or in the conduct of trial there could be no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction with the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court. It is also the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that there must be manifest error or illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice warranting exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction against acquittal at the instance of a private party. 11. In support of the above said contention of the respondents, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P.Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkand) & Anr. reported in 2002(5) Supreme 332 has been cited. 11. In support of the above said contention of the respondents, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P.Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkand) & Anr. reported in 2002(5) Supreme 332 has been cited. In the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has made the following observation:- "It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instance was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence, nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial court took the opposite view. This Court has repeatedly observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction." 12. The following principles can be deduced from the above said observation made by the Honble Supreme Court. i) If there is no illegality either in the procedure or in the conduct of trial, the High Court cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ii) The High Court, may, on appreciation of evidence on record, reach a conclusion different from that of the trial Court. But the same shall not be enough to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C against the judgment of acquittal. ii) The High Court, may, on appreciation of evidence on record, reach a conclusion different from that of the trial Court. But the same shall not be enough to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C against the judgment of acquittal. iii) Though there is a defect in the procedure or in the conduct of trial, it should have led to the miscarriage of justice warranting exercise of the revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. iv) perversity of the judgment or finding shall be an exception to the general rule that the revisional Court shall not appreciate the evidence. v) Even if High Court, on exercise of its revisional power comes to the conclusion that there is legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial leading to miscarriage of justice, it cannot convert an acquittal into one of conviction. vi) Even in case wherein there is justification for interference with the judgment of acquittal after setting aside the same it has to be sent back to the trial court for retrial. vii) While deciding the question whether to exercise the revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal, the court should not lose sight of the consequence, namely that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused and that itself must caution the court exercising revisional jurisdiction. 13. According to the testimony of P.W.4 (the injured) and P.W.1-Srinivasan (eye witness), the first accused attacked P.W.1 on the forehead with a knife, whereas the second accused attacked him with an iron pipe on his right hand. One more person, by name Selvam, who was there in the scene of occurrence according to the prosecution version, has not been examined as a witness on prosecution side. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that to his knowledge, P.W.4-Thiagarajan had not given any water pipe connection on 15.08.2004. Even between the evidence of the two persons examined as eye witnesses, material contradictions were found by the trial court. According to the evidence of P.W.1, all the three persons, namely P.W.1, P.W.4 and Selvam went to the place of occurrence when the first accused was dismantling the pipe connection by kicking the same with his foot and at that point of time, the first accused was holding a knife in his hand. According to the evidence of P.W.1, all the three persons, namely P.W.1, P.W.4 and Selvam went to the place of occurrence when the first accused was dismantling the pipe connection by kicking the same with his foot and at that point of time, the first accused was holding a knife in his hand. He would further state that when A1 was questioned by P.W.4, he attacked him on the head with the said knife. It is his further evidence that the pipe that was dismantled by A1 by kicking with his foot, was a plastic pipe (PVC pipe). On the other hand, he would state that P.W.4 was attacked on his right hand by the second accused with an iron pipe. In this regard, evidence of P.W.4 varies from that of P.W.1. He would say that the pipeline embedded under the earth was of PVC pipe, whereas the tap connection was given with an iron pipe. P.W.1 and P.W.4 gave different versions as to where from the first accused took the knife to attack P.W.4. P.W.1 would say that while they were approaching the place of occurrence he saw the accused holding a knife in his hand. On the other hand, P.W.4 would say that the first accused had kept the knife concealed in his waist and only after the altercation started he took out the knife and attacked him. 14. It was P.W.1 who is said to have given the statement based on which the case was registered. But clear motive has been attributed to him to depose against the accused. First accuseds wife was the Panchayat president. One Mr.Jayakumar, brother-in-law of P.W.1 was employed as a clerk in the Panchayat office and he was removed from service on the charge of mis-appropriation of funds after the wife of the first accused became the President. When he was confronted with such suggestions, P.W.1 was not in a position to dispute it. On the other hand, he would plead ignorance of the said facts. P.W.4 has also admitted that there was previous enmity between himself and the wife of the first accused and that himself, Selvam and one Swaminathan have filed a suit against the wife of the first accused in the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi. He has also admitted that he produced the Minute Book of the Panchayat in the said case. P.W.4 has also admitted that there was previous enmity between himself and the wife of the first accused and that himself, Selvam and one Swaminathan have filed a suit against the wife of the first accused in the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi. He has also admitted that he produced the Minute Book of the Panchayat in the said case. It was alleged on behalf of the accused that P.W.1 had run away from the office of the panchayat with the said minute book after the above said Jayakumar was removed from service when the panchayat board meeting was in progress. However, he would state that the minute book came to him in tapal and that thus he was able to produce it in the suit filed before the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi. The said explanation is far from being convincing. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 both the accused threw the weapons used by them in the scene of occurrence after attacking P.W.4. However, evidence has been adduced on the side of prosecution as if the knife and pipe marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2 were recovered from the bushes. The seizure mahazar has been marked as Ex.P4. In Ex.P4 the description of M.O.1 is given as a knife with a wooden handle. But one of the attestors of the mahazar examined as P.W.7, has stated that the police officer recovered a knife without a handle. The above said material contradiction will cause a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version as to the alleged recovery of weapons. .15. P.W.1 would say that none of the accused were attacked either by him or by P.W.4 or by Selvam. However, accused 1 and 2 were found with injuries and they were treated as in-patients in Government Hospital, Tiruppattur. In fact based on the statement of the first accused recorded by P.W.9 himself while he was taking treatment as an in-patient in the Government Hospital, Tiruppattur a case was registered against P.W.4 in Cr.No.325/2004 on the file of Karisalampatti Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Though there were three eye witnesses including the injured (P.W.4), the third eye witness by name Selvam has not been examined as a witness on the side of the prosecution. The injured and the person on whose statement the case was registered alone were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.1 respectively. Though there were three eye witnesses including the injured (P.W.4), the third eye witness by name Selvam has not been examined as a witness on the side of the prosecution. The injured and the person on whose statement the case was registered alone were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.1 respectively. No explanation is forthcoming for the non-examination of Selvam as a witness on the side of the prosecution. .16. According to the prosecution case, P.W.4 had given a water pipe connection to the veterinary hospital since the President of the Panchayat (wife of A1) was preventing the moves for providing such connection to the veterinary hospital. It is the further case of the prosecution that the water pipe connection was given by P.W.4 on 15.08.2004 and the same was dismantled by the accused 1 and 2 on 16.08.2004 at about 6.00 a.m. The fact that P.W.4 gave water pipe connection to the veterinary hospital on 15.08.2004 without a necessary resolution being passed in the Panchayat Board meeting and without the authorization of the Panchayat Board president and that the same was dismantled on 16.08.2004 at about 6.00 a.m was not denied by the accused persons before the lower court. On the other hand, admitting the fact that P.W.4 gave such water pipe connection without the authorization of either the President or the Panchayat Board, they took the stand that the same was reported to the President by the overhead pump operator by name Shanmugam and that pursuant to the instructions given by the Panchayat President, the said water pipe connection was removed by the overhead pump operator Shanmugam in the presence of accused persons and selvam (elected member of second ward). It is the further contention of the accused persons that while the said overhead pump operator Shanmugam was dismantling the water pipe connection unauthorisedly provided by P.W.4, P.W.4-Thiagarajan came there and abused the overhead pump operator with filthy language; that when the above said overhead pump operator Shanmugam and the accused persons informed P.W.4 that he had interfered with the supply of drinking water to the public by giving unauthorized connection, he assaulted A2 and pushed him to the ground; that when A1 intervened and tried to lift A2 he was attacked by P.W.4 with the iron pipe aiming a blow at his head; that two such attempts were made and the first accused blocked them with his hands and thus he got injuries on the right and left hands; that the said occurrence was witnessed by the above said Shanmugam (overhead pump operator), Kaliappan (A2), Ilango, Ramamurthy and Selvam and that at that point of time, the villagers questioned the propriety of the act on the part of P.W.4-Thiagarajan which resulted in a scuffle between him and the villagers in which P.W.4 sustained injuries. 17. The accused have clearly vouched for the injuries caused to P.W.4 and also the injuries sustained by them. On the other hand, the prosecution has not explained how the accused persons sustained injuries. When the accused were able to vouch for the injuries found on P.W.4 as well as the accused and the prosecution is not in a position to say how the accused persons got injuries and where there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is nothing wrong in the lower courts finding that the prosecution has not come forward with the true account of the occurrence; that the story propounded by the accused was also probable and that hence the same would give rise of a reasonable suspicion regarding the prosecution case as to how and in whose hands P.W.4 sustained injuries. 18. It has been pointed out supra that there was contradiction between the two eye witnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.4 as to where from the first accused took the knife for attacking P.W.4 and what kind of pipe was used by A2 to attack P.W.4. 18. It has been pointed out supra that there was contradiction between the two eye witnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.4 as to where from the first accused took the knife for attacking P.W.4 and what kind of pipe was used by A2 to attack P.W.4. It has also been pointed out supra that the theory of recovery is not believable as the only attesting witness examined on the side of the prosecution, namely P.W.7 has given a version contrary to one found in Ex.P4-Seisure Mahazar regarding the description of M.O.1-knife. He would state that a knife without handle was recovered. However, in Ex.P4 the knife has been described to be one with a wooden handle. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, one can come to a definite conclusion that the finding of the court below cannot be termed perverse. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that there was any defect in the proceedings or that any inadmissible evidence was admitted and taken into consideration. It is also not the case of the revision petitioner that there was any defect in law or procedure adopted by the court to say that the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 19. For all the reasons stated above, this court has to accept the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that there is no illegality or defect in law or procedure applied by the court below warranting interference with the judgment of acquittal of the trial court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court. If the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P.Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkand) & Anr. reported in 2002(5) Supreme 332 cited supra are applied to the facts of the case on hand, this court has to necessarily come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the judgment of the court below in exercise of this courts revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. There is no merit in the criminal revision case and same deserves to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the criminal revision case fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.