JUDGMENT Kanchan Chakraborty, J. 1. THE challenge in this revision application is to the judgment dated 31st May, 2003 passed by Shri Shankar Acharya, Additional Sessions Judge, (FIC No. 2), District- Purulia, in Sessions Trial Number- 5 of 2003, whereby acquitting the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 from the charges under Section 147/148/302/149 of IPC. 2. SMT. Subid Bhagat wife of Deceased Vijay Bhagat has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment impugned mainly on the following grounds : i) that the learned High Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective; ii) that the learned Court erred in not believing the evidence of the P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 without any cogent reason; iii) that the learned Court failed to appreciate that relations of the deceased can not be categorised as interested witnesses and being so, their evidence can not be discarded and disbelieved; and iv) that the judgment of acquittal under challenge being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside and an order for rehearing/retrial of the case is to be passed. For proper appropriation of the entire matter, a short reference to the factual aspects is given below : 3. ON 22.3.1990, at about 5 P.M. while Vijay Bhagat was proceeding towards Suisa Railway Station from his village Suisa, the petitioners told him to join Forward Bloc party leaving Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party and threatened him with dire consequences in case of not doing so. That fact was reported to Md. Alam Khan by Fatu Singh (P.W. 6) on 23.3.1990. ON getting such information, Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 2) went to Suisa market at 6.30 A.M. At that time some members of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party reached there for the purpose of collection of subscription for their party function to be held on 31.3.1990. Vijoy Bhagat was also present there. Sometimes thereafter, Opposite party Ram Singh Mahato appeared there. Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 1) was called on by him inside the market. Fatu Singh (P.W. 6) and Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 2) also went inside the market with Md. Alam Khan. Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 1) witnessed that one Panchanan Rajok coming out holding Bijay Bhagat. Sometimes thereafter, Opposite party Ram Singh Mahato appeared there. Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 1) was called on by him inside the market. Fatu Singh (P.W. 6) and Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 2) also went inside the market with Md. Alam Khan. Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 1) witnessed that one Panchanan Rajok coming out holding Bijay Bhagat. Bijay Bhagat was being followed by the opposite parties Maheswar Kuiri, Dhaneswar Kuiri, Sukumar Muru, Manaaram Mahato, Ram Singh @ Ram Siringar Mahato, Bir Singh Mahato (Since deceased) with Arms. Petitioner Ram Singh Mahato rushed towards Vijay Bhagat. In the mean time, opposite party Bir Singh Mahato caught hold Md. Alam Khan and directed the other opposite party to commit murder. Opposite party Maheswar Kuiri assaulted Bijay Bhagat with spear and tangi while opposite party Ram Singh Mahato threw Bijay Bhagat on the ground. The entire incident took place infront the shop of one Suku Paramanik. All the opposite parties/accused assaulted Bijay with spear and tangi causing his death instantly and fled away. Fatu Singh (P.W. 6), Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 2) and Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 1) had gone therefrom towards railway lines keeping the dead body of Bijay Bhagat lying on the ground infront the shop of Suku Paramanik and Beni Sao. Md. Alam Khan lodged one FIR in Suisa outpost addressing the officer-in-charge of Bagmundi police station. ON the basis of said FIR Bagmundi police station case no. 17 of 1990 dated 23.3.1990 was started under Sections 147/148/149/302/34 of IPC against the opposite parties. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 147/148/302/149 of IPC against the six opposite parties who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses including the Doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Vijay Bhagat, the I.O., Md. Alam Khan, Fatu Singh and Ram Bilas Singh. Some documents, such as, the FIR, some G.D. entries being no. 225 231 dated 23.3.1990, the post mortem report, inquest report, the sketch map of the P.O. were admitted into evidence and marked Ex. on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined nor any document was placed in the Trial Court by the defense on their behalf. Some documents, such as, the FIR, some G.D. entries being no. 225 231 dated 23.3.1990, the post mortem report, inquest report, the sketch map of the P.O. were admitted into evidence and marked Ex. on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined nor any document was placed in the Trial Court by the defense on their behalf. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, found that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges leveled against the accused/opposite parties no. 2 to 7 and, accordingly, recorded their acquittal from the charges. Smt. Subid Bhagat, wife of deceased Bijay Bhagat has coming with this revision application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of acquittal on the grounds mentioned earlier. 4. THE points to be considered are 1) whether the judgment impugned suffers from any incorrectness, illegality, invalidity and impropriety and (2) whether this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction shall set aside the judgment under challenge and pass an order of retrial/rehearing of the case. Mr. Dipankar Pal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contents that the learned Trial Court wrongly brushed aside admissible evidence as inadmissible and overlooked material evidence of the prosecution and passed the order of acquittal considering irrelevant evidence. He takes me to the FIR (Ex. 1) and submits the contains of the FIR are sufficient enough to indicate that on 22.3.1990 Vijay Bhagat was asked to leave the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party by opposite parties Ram Singh Mahato, Gopal Prasad Kuiri and Dhaneswar Kuiri who also threatened him with dire consequences in case he fails to do so. It also appears there from that Fatu Singh (P.W. 6) informed that fact to the lodger of the FIR Md. Alam Khan (P.W. 1) on 23.3.1990 in the morning. Hearing that news, the P.W. 1 had been to Suisa market. Some of the followers of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party were collecting subscription in the market at that time together with Vijay Bhagat. At that time, opposite party Ram Singh had asked the P.W. 1 to go inside the market. Fatu Singh and Ram Bilash Singh also accompanied him. The P.W. 1 found that Panchanan Bhagat was bringing Vijay Bhagat holding his hand and opposite parties were approaching Vijay Bhagat with arms. Opposite party Maheswar directed to kill vijay Bhagat. At that time, opposite party Ram Singh had asked the P.W. 1 to go inside the market. Fatu Singh and Ram Bilash Singh also accompanied him. The P.W. 1 found that Panchanan Bhagat was bringing Vijay Bhagat holding his hand and opposite parties were approaching Vijay Bhagat with arms. Opposite party Maheswar directed to kill vijay Bhagat. Maheswar hit Bijay with tangi and Ram Singh pushed him on the ground in front the shop of Suku Paramanik. Thereafter, all the opposite parties started assaulting Vijay till his death. They left the place after causing death of Vijay. Fatu Singh (P.W. 6), Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 2) rescued the P.W. 1 from Bir Singh Mahato and they together had gone towards the railway lines. The dead body of Vijay was lying in front of the shop of Suku Paramanik at that time. 5. MR. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contents that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the facts stated in the Ex. 1 (FIR) were entirely corroborated by the P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W.2. There is no denial to the fact that the death of Vijay Bhagat was caused due to shock and heaumaurage as a result of injuries detected on his body which were anti mortem and homicidal nature according to the post mortem report (Ex. 5). MR. Pal contents further that P.W. 5 Sasthi Bhagat son of Vijay Bhagat witnessed the incident. His oral testimony was disbelieved by learned Trial Court without any cogent reason. He contents further that the evidence of P.W. 5 was fully corroborated by the P.W. 8 Smt. Subid Bhagat, the wife of the deceased. Therefore, MR. Pal contents, the learned Court failed to appreciate relevant/material evidence on record. The fact that Vijay Bhagat died in side Suisa market on 23.3.1990 has not be denied. It is not also denied that his death was homicide in nature. If so, when the P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 supported the prosecution case by giving vivid description of the incident, learned Trial Court ought to have recorded conviction of the opposite parties. 6. IN support of his contention Mr. Pal refers to the decision of the Apex Court in Abed Ali Laskay and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 C. Cr.L.R. (Cal) 621. Mr. Sudipto Maitro learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 6. IN support of his contention Mr. Pal refers to the decision of the Apex Court in Abed Ali Laskay and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2003 C. Cr.L.R. (Cal) 621. Mr. Sudipto Maitro learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 contents that the judgment impugned is not only well written but also based on reasoning. He submits that the learned Trial Court has neither overlooked relevant/material part of the evidence on record nor put importance on irrelevant/ immaterial evidence in order to record acquittal. Mr. Moitra reminds this Court the consistent view of the Apex Court in the matter of exercising revisional power by High Court against an order of acquittal when invoked by a private party and submits that while the judgement impugned does not suffer from any incorrectness, illegality and impropriety, this Court should not set aside the same by exercising its revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contention Mr. Moitra refers to the decisions of Apex Court in Bindestwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand and another) reported in 2002 SC (Cri) 1448 and Sheetala Prasad and Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 SC 1140 . 7. MR. Addya, learned Counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal contents that the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside because the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly. He supports the submission of MR. Pal. 8. I have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record together with the Exs. with rapt attention. I have also perused the judgment under challenged. The Learned Trial Court elaborately discussed the evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. There are two episodes in the prosecution case. The first one is related to the incident dated 22.3.1990 when some of the opposite parties threatened Vijay to join forward Bloc Party. The second episode relates to the alleged incident of assaulting and causing death of Vijay Bhagat in Suisa market on 23.3.1990. Learned Court found that the episode no. 1 was not at all established because the statement the P.W. 1, the lodger of the FIR, and facts reveled in the FIR (Ex. 1), was not supported by the P.W. 6 Fatu Singh in course of his examination in the trial. No other witness uttered a single word regarding the first episode. Learned Court found that the episode no. 1 was not at all established because the statement the P.W. 1, the lodger of the FIR, and facts reveled in the FIR (Ex. 1), was not supported by the P.W. 6 Fatu Singh in course of his examination in the trial. No other witness uttered a single word regarding the first episode. As far as second episode i.e. causing injuries and death of Vijay Bhagat is concerned, I find that according to the Ex. 1 (FIR) Fatu Singh (P.W. 6), Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 2) witnessed the incident together with the P.W. 1. The P.W. 2 stated that he heard hue and cry and found people fleeing away. He also fled away and called on by Fatu Singh (P.W. 6) who told him that there had been a marpit in the market. Hearing that, the P.W. 2 gone to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Vijay was lying there. The learned Court found that the P.W. 2 was not at all witnessed the incident although projected as such in the FIR. 9. FATU Singh examined as P.W. 6 was declared hostile by the prosecution. He denied the prosecution case entirely. Therefore, I do not find that learned Trial Court made any mistake in taking the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 into account for the purpose of recording acquittal of the opposite parties. The evidence of the P.W. 2 and the P.W. 6, no doubt, cast shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and learned Court has taken note of that rightly. 10. THE P.W. 5 was the son of P.W. 8. He stated in his cross-examination that when he reached in front of Beni's shop, he found his father Vijay was lying dead there and nobody was present there. It is cardinal principle of law of evidence that oral testimonies of a witness is to be considered as a whole and not in an isolated manner. A Trial Court while appreciating evidence of a particular witness, must consider the statement made by him in his examination in chief as well as cross- examination. The statements made in examination-in-chief can not be accepted sacrosanct otherwise the purpose of cross-examination would be frustrated. A Trial Court while appreciating evidence of a particular witness, must consider the statement made by him in his examination in chief as well as cross- examination. The statements made in examination-in-chief can not be accepted sacrosanct otherwise the purpose of cross-examination would be frustrated. The Court is bound to consider the statement made by said witness in his cross-examination also because when a witness fails to stand the test of cross-examination and when his testimony is shakened, his evidence becomes doubtful and unreliable. The P.W. 6, according to the statement made by him in his cross- examination, reached the P.O. after the incident and he did not find any of the opposite parties at the P.O. Naturally, learned Trial Court did not accept him as an ocular witness and discarded his statement made in his examination-in-chief. I find no wrong was done by the learned Trial Court in doing so. 11. AS far as the evidence of P.W. 8 is concerned, none of the witnesses stated that she had been to the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. Her presence in the spot has not been accepted by the learned Trial Court. The P.W. 8, at best, could be said to be a post- ocular witness. She reached the spot hearing hue and cry of the P.W. 6 and found dead body of her husband lying there. Learned Court found that the statements of P.W. 8 that she reached the spot and found her husband lying dead there and that the opposite parties were fleeing away with deadly weapons altogether indicates that she did not witness the incident. Learned Court discarded the evidence of the P.W. 8 on the ground that she had been to the spot hearing the hue and cry of her son P.W. 6 that "Baba ka Mare Falloo". P.W. 6 did not find any of the opposite parties on spot. Therefore, the learned Court found it difficult to believe the statement of the P.W. 8 that she had seen the opposite parties were fleeing away with arms in their hands from the place of occurrence. 12. ON careful perusal of the entire evidence on record and the judgment impugned I find that the learned Trial Court has not only discussed the entire evidence of the prosecution but also had taken pain of considering the positive side of the prosecution evidence. 12. ON careful perusal of the entire evidence on record and the judgment impugned I find that the learned Trial Court has not only discussed the entire evidence of the prosecution but also had taken pain of considering the positive side of the prosecution evidence. The learned Court neither ignored/ overlooked the relevant facts and evidence nor put unnecessary importance on immaterial and irrelevant evidence in order to record acquittal. It is not correct to say, as Mr. Pal suggests, that learned Court discarded the evidence of the witnesses because they are relations to the deceased. I find that was not the only ground for recording the acquittal of the opposite parties. Learned Court has taken that point as one of the grounds which, in my estimate, did not find much importance in the judgment impugned. 13. THE settled principle of law in the matter of exercising revisional power has been reiterated in Sitala Prasad and Ors. Vs. Sikant Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 Sc. 1140 , wherein the Hon'ble Court taken into consideration its earlier views in stiphen's case, Lagadra's case, Chinnashwami's case and Babsilal's case. It is well settled principal and consistent view of the Apex Court that Trial Court should not and must not set aside an order of the acquittal when invoked by a private complaint save and except in glaring cases of injustice resulting form some violation of fundamental principles of law. HONOURABLE Court cautioned that this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases to prevent gross miscarriage of justice or to set right a patent wrong or error (of law and fact) which would otherwise cause irreparable injury and that this power is not to be exercised merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view or mis-appropriated the evidence. In Sitala Prasad (Supra) the Hon'ble Court set the instances wherein such a revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court. I find that this case is not coming within any such exceptions. 14. IN view of the discussion above, I am constrained to hold that the judgment impugned is neither suffering from any patent illegality nor any error either in law or in fact necessitating interference of this Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revisional application fails and is, thus disposed of.