Judgment : G. Rajasuria, J. Animadverting upon the judgment dated 310. 2006 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, this criminal revision petition is focused. 2. A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision would run thus: (i)The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the two accused for the offences under Sections 323 IPC (3 counts) and 3(1)(x)/SC/ST P.A. Act as against A 1 and Sections 323 IPC, 506 (ii)IPC and 3(1)(x)/SC/ST P.A. Act a against A2; since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (i).On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 was examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-12 were marked. On the defence side, Exhibit D1 was marked and no oral evidence was adduced. (iii).Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused. (iii).Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such an order or acquittal, this revision is filed by the injured person Muniyappan viz, P.W.1 on the following grounds among others: The trial Court miserably failed to take into consideration the oral and documentary evidence as put forth on the side of the prosecution, which established the prosecution case. Merely by picking holes in the prosecution case, the lower Court acquitted the accused. The medical evidence was ignored by the lower Court. Simply because the injured witnesses are relatives and they were not in a position to precisely and concisely, describe the date of occurrence and other details, the learned Magistrate taking a draconian view of the matter, rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused. 3. Despite service of notice to the accused and printing the names concerned, neither the accused nor their advocate made appearance before the Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of law on the part of the lower Court in deciding the matter? 6. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of law on the part of the lower Court in deciding the matter? 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court to various portions of the evidence, would develop his argument to the effect that the evidence of P.W.1; the injured, coupled with the medical evidence and the evidence of P.W.3 Kamal, would establish the injury inflicted by the accused on P.W.1 and there was absolutely no justification for the Magistrate in acquitting the accused in toto. 7. Whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no appeal has been filed by the State Government. 8. Pithily and precisely, the case of the prosecution is to the effect that on 18.05.2005, at about 8 a.m. (morning) near the fields of injured Muniappan at Kedampalayam village, A1and A2, viz., Arumugham and Selvamurthy in furtherance and unparliamentarily, non-U and vulgar language touching upon the Schedule caste status of P.W.1 Muniappan; A1 and A2 also beat and inflicted simple injuries on him. In the course of the same transaction, A1 beat the relatives of P.W.1, viz., Muniammal and Govindan and caused simple injuries to them and A2 also inundated Muniappan with dire consequences. 9. From the plain reading of the depositions as well as the other records available, what I could understand is that absolutely, there is no reliable evidence much less clinching evidence capable of driving home the guilt of A1 and A2 relating to the alleged injuries caused to Muniammal and Govindan. 10. However, in this revision, the only point deserves consideration is relating to the injuries sustained by P.W.1. 11. Even though the Doctor described that there was no external injury to P.W.1, nonetheless, he would observe in Exhibit P3 that tenderness was present. However, in respect of Muniappan and Govinda, there were no external injuries at all. The prosecution case itself is such that due to some land dispute pending before the Munsif Court, between the injured party and the accused party, the incident in this case occurred and that too when Muniappan, P.W.1 was at the spot, so to say, near his field. Only after A1 and A2 have allegedly beaten P.W.1, the other two injured persons, viz. Only after A1 and A2 have allegedly beaten P.W.1, the other two injured persons, viz. Muniammal and her husband Govindan came to the spot and they were also said to have been beaten. As has been already pointed out above, to prove the case relating to Muniainmal and Govindan, absolutely, there is no evidence, much less clinching evidence. Whereas P.W.1 would speak about the factum of he having been beaten by A1 and A2 and to that effect, P.W.3 Kamal, without any embellishment bear out the testimony of P.W.1. 12. Now the core question arises, whether based on the testimony of P.W.1and P.W.3 Kamal, the prosecution case could be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. No doubt at the first instance, had the Magistrate thought of convicting the accused for having inflicted injury on P.W.1, perhaps this Court would not have interfered with such conviction but the position is some what different now. The lower Court, which is the competent Court, had the opportunity of seeing the witness deposing before it, arrived at the conclusion after analysis of facts and evidence, the entire case should result in acquittal. In such a case, whether this Court as the revisional Court could intervene is the pertinent question. 13. At this juncture, the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court could be fruitfully cited: (i) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and Other v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Another AIR 2002 SC 2907 : (2002) 6 SCC 650 : (2002) SCC (Cr) 1448: (2002) MLJ (Crl) 939. An excerpt from it would run thus at p.942 of MLJ (Crl): “13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial Court. 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 in not warranted. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified for interfering with’ the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases in not warranted. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified for interfering with’ the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record many reaches 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 trail Court in the instant case 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 trail itself. (ii) Sathyajit Banerjee and others v. State of W.B. and Other AIR 2005 SC 4161: 2005 SCC (Cri) 276, and excerpt from it would run thus: “22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show the settled show the settled legal position that the 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.” A bare perusal of those decisions would clearly exemplify and indicate that as against acquittal when revision is filed, High Court should be slow in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Simply because, a different view is possible, the Court should not intervene unless there is perversity or non application of law. Here, the learned Magistrate, while recording evidence had the opportunity of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and exercised its discretion that no case had been made out in respect of the accused. In such a case, only based on the evidence of P.W.3-Kamal, this Court, could not simply remit the matter back to lower Court for re-appreciating the evidence and pass further orders. 14. In such a case, only based on the evidence of P.W.3-Kamal, this Court, could not simply remit the matter back to lower Court for re-appreciating the evidence and pass further orders. 14. I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction because, as had been already pointed out supra, even though P.W.3 Kamal, the relative of P.W.1 had borne out the testimony of the injured, nonetheless, it was not safe to rely on such evidence. It is also a case, wherein no independent witness was examined even though prosecution relied on certain witness as independent ones, nevertheless they turned hostile. 15. Over and above that, I would like to point out that if at all the remitting of the case to the Magistrate Court arises it could remotely be possible only under section 323 of IPC and not under the Special provisions of SC/ST Act. Hence, this is not a fit case to interfere with the judgment of the lower court. 16. Accordingly, the revision fails the same is dismissed.