JUDGMENT Unmindful of very much limited scope of revisional court in cases of acquittal, learned advocate Mr. S.R.Divetia for the appellant proceeded to urge that interference is called for and acquittal is needed to be set aside in the present case. 2. The accused - respondent Nos.1 to 12 herein were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for forming an unlawful assembly and for other offences. 3. The incident alleged is thus: The complainant has a Pangalla at village Chaloda, Taluka : Dholaka, District : Ahmedabad, nearby the Bus-stand. Near his pangalla, there is a ditch to dump wastage and garbage. It is alleged that the accused side had tried to fill up the ditch in order to put their own pangalla there. On that count, there was an altercation between the parties about 10 days prior to the date of the incident, which the present incident - occurred on 8.6.2004 at about 8.30 pm. The case of the prosecution is that when the complainant was at his pangalla, Sanjay (A/1) came there armed with a dharia and started altercation with the complainant on account of removal of garbage from the ditch. Upon hearing the uproar/altercation between them, family members of the complainant side came there and thereafter the members of the accused side armed with different weapons, mostly dharias, also came there and it followed by the incident, wherein the father of the complainant received injuries due to which he died and at least other two persons of the complainant side also received injuries. 4. The complaint was lodged with Dholka Police Station. In Sessions Case No. 197/2004 arising from the said complaint, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses of which three are doctors. 5. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of the complainant, PW.5, PW.16 & PW.17. They are said to be eye witnesses to the incident. 4. The complaint was lodged with Dholka Police Station. In Sessions Case No. 197/2004 arising from the said complaint, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses of which three are doctors. 5. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of the complainant, PW.5, PW.16 & PW.17. They are said to be eye witnesses to the incident. The learned trial Judge, however, was pleased to record conclusion of acquittal mainly on the grounds that; (a) evidence of material witnesses, particularly qua Sanjay (A/1) is not trustworthy and acceptable, (b) reading of evidence of material witnesses would give an impression that PW.5 may have reached little later at the place of the incident, (c) there is inconsistency as to the place of the incident between oral evidence and evidence of panchas to the scene of offence, (d) all the witnesses of material panchnama have turned hostile and they do not support the case of prosecution, (e) recovery of weapons is not proved and established, (f) that forming of an unlawful assembly by the accused is not established. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused of the offences for which they were charged. The State has not preferred any appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Divetia for the applicant at the time of hearing submitted that the trial Court has seriously erred in appreciating the evidence of material witnesses. It was submitted that the role played by each of the accused is specifically stated by the material witnesses. Mr. Divetia further submitted that giving of fatal blow by A/2 is specifically stated by the material witnesses and the say of the witnesses in oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. It was submitted that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused persons. 8. At the time of hearing, attention of the Court was also drawn to the case of Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 SC 1721 . In that case, appellants-accused were facing charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They came to be acquitted by the Sessions Court. In revision filed by the son of the deceased, Hon’ble High Court was pleased to take different view on the basis of the evidence and was pleased to set aside the order of acquittal. The appellants-accused had preferred an appeal against the order of High Court. They came to be acquitted by the Sessions Court. In revision filed by the son of the deceased, Hon’ble High Court was pleased to take different view on the basis of the evidence and was pleased to set aside the order of acquittal. The appellants-accused had preferred an appeal against the order of High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred and relied on the cases of (i) K.C.Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 , (ii) D.Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 , and (iii) Jogendranath Jha v. Polailal Biswas, AIR 1951 SC 316 on the scope of High Court s powers while exercising revisional jurisdiction and was pleased to allow the appeal. In Bansi Lal s case (supra), prosecution case mainly rested on PW.1, PW.2 & PW.7. PW.2 had turned hostile during the trial. In that case, Sessions Court had considered the evidence of PW.1 & PW.7 at length. The Sessions Court also considered medical evidence. However, the Sessions Court found that there were serious discrepancies and glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 & PW.7 and medical evidence. In that case, Sessions Court concluded that the evidence of eye witnesses could not be safely relied on. In the revision filed by the complainant, High Court had reappreciated the evidence on record and had ordered retrial. It was, as held by the Supreme Court, impermissible, as even appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal by taking different view on the finding of facts, in the manner as indulged in that case by the High Court. 9. In Logendranath Jha s case (supra)- the earliest case - also the appellants-accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for forming unlawful assembly etc. The Sessions Court, after examining the case at great detail had found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and was pleased to acquit all the accused. The complainant had filed revision against the order of acquittal and it was came to be allowed. Allowing the appeal against the order passed in revision, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that, ----------. The complainant had filed revision against the order of acquittal and it was came to be allowed. Allowing the appeal against the order passed in revision, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that, ----------. This does not mean that in dealing with a revision petition by a private party against an order of acquittal, the High Court could in the absence of any error on a point of law, re-appraise the evidence and reverse the findings of facts on which the acquittal was based. --------- By merely characterizing the judgment of the trial Court as perverse and lacking in perspective , the High Court cannot reverse pure findings of fact based on the trial Court s appreciation of the evidence in the case. (para-7). 10. The above-referred test laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court would show that merely taking an alternate or different view from the view taken by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence would not have justified interference at the hands of revisional Court. One of the reason for taking this view may be that the trial Court has advantage of seeing the demeanour and conduct of the witnesses. This would reflect, consciously and subconsciously, in appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. It may be noted that the trial Court may have erred here and there in expressing its view on the material on record and appreciation of evidence by it may fall short of standard expected from it by revisonal court, but taking a different view of the matter that may be a better view - would not enable the revisional court to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. That refined way of saying same thing is not domain of revisional court. Lest the exercise of revisional power has effect of obliterating distinction between appellate and revisional power. Such exercise is unjustified and as laid down by the Supreme Court, it is impermissible. 11. In the present case, reading the evidence of material witnesses i.e. complainant, PW.16 & PW.17, particularly their say about the incident in examination-in-chief would, at first instance, give an impression that there is a case of prosecution, at least qua some of the accused. Learned advocate Mr. Divetia wanted the Court to read this part of the evidence only. It is not possible to agree with him. Learned advocate Mr. Divetia wanted the Court to read this part of the evidence only. It is not possible to agree with him. The say of the material witnesses as to the incident has to be consistent with other material evidence on record and other circumstances of the case and moreover, it should be in the nature of inspiring confidence. Stereotype saying or parrot like narration in examination-in-chief as in this case by itself would not help. In the present case, without committing sin of entering into the arena of reappreciating the evidence of material witnesses, it can be said that the trial Court has not committed any such error in appreciating the evidence, which justifies interference in revision. Some of the deficiencies in the case of prosecution are glaring. For instance, as per the post-mortem note, the deceased had received 5 external injuries of which, just one was on his head against that it is the say of the complainant that the accused were about 12-13 of which barring couple of persons, all had weapon with them, most of them had dharias and all had participated in the incident. Yet, the deceased had just five external injuries, says post-mortem note. Who should be held guilty in such circumstances? Perhaps A/2 may have given fatal blow to the accused, needle of suspicion points to that, but in the cross-examination by attributing dharia blows also to the other accused, prosecution has facilitated the case being thrown in arena of doubt. It is quite odd that in such an incident, complainant, who is son of the deceased, and his younger brother manages to escape without receiving any external injury. The accused persons have also filed cross-case against the complainant side. However, material witnesses in their evidence clearly deny to have any weapon with them at the time of the incident. In this regard, it is their say that in the incident, the accused may have received injuries by their own weapons. Lodging of cross-case is admitted by I.O. in his evidence. It may be stated that same I.O. has conducted investigation of both the cases. It is serious error, it would prejudice one of the case and perhaps both the cases. Lodging of cross-case is admitted by I.O. in his evidence. It may be stated that same I.O. has conducted investigation of both the cases. It is serious error, it would prejudice one of the case and perhaps both the cases. The cross-case ought to have been investigated by different I.O. Lastly, it may be observed that after occurrence of incident, when the injured were taken to hospital, none had given any history to the Doctor, either about the assailants or about the weapons used in the incident. 12. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the conclusion reached by the trial Court, on the basis of the material available on record, is not correct, legal or proper. That being so, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, is uncalled for. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.