Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner/P.W.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 18/8/2009 in C.C.No.165 of 2006 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, while passing the Judgment in C.C.No.165 of 2006 on 18/8/2009 has among other things observed that “... In his evidence, the P.W.1 was assertive at the time of incident his wife was taking rest in a cot while P.W.3 and P.W.4 were available around his cot. But, in Ex.P.1 complaint, the P.W.1 did not say that P.W.2 to P.W.4 were available around him. Instead, P.W.1 would say that P.W.3 and P.W.4 ran towards him on hearing his crying and the accused went away from the house after giving a death threat. Here, P.W.1's evidence does not have cogency with Ex.P.1 (complaint) as to the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.4. So, the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 suffers lack of credibility and it cannot be given any credential” and resultantly, held that the Accused (Second Respondent in Revision) is not guilty under Sections 448, 294 (b), 325 and 506 (ii) IPC and acquitted him under Section 248 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the guilt under Sections 448, 294 (b), 325 and 506 (ii) IPC has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/P.W.1 (Defacto Complainant) submits that the trial Court has delivered the Judgment in C.C.No.165 of 2006 dated 18/8/2009 based on surmises and conjectures and acquitted the Second Respondent/Accused and as such the Judgment in C.C.No.165 of 2006 is not sustainable in the eye of Law. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/P.W.1 contends that the trial Court has taken into consideration the minor contradictions in the evidence of witnesses (which are not material irregularities) and has acquitted the Second Respondent/Accused in the main case which has resulted in serious miscarriage of Justice. 5. Lastly, it is the plea of the Revision Petitioner/P.W.1 that the trial Court has brushed aside the evidence of eye witnesses to the occurrence viz., P.Ws.1 to 4 and the same has resulted in serious miscarriage of Justice. 6. 5. Lastly, it is the plea of the Revision Petitioner/P.W.1 that the trial Court has brushed aside the evidence of eye witnesses to the occurrence viz., P.Ws.1 to 4 and the same has resulted in serious miscarriage of Justice. 6. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the First Respondent/Complainant submits that the trial Court has looked into the entire gamut of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and also looked into Exs.P.1 to P.5 and has come to a resultant conclusion that the guilt against the Second Respondent/Accused under Sections 448, 294 (b), 325 and 506 (ii) IPC have not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and ultimately, acquitted him under Section 248 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/ Accused that the trial Court has opined that the evidence of P.W.1 is not cogent in regard to Ex.P.1 complaint as to the presence of witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 and also categorically observed that the evidence of other witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to 4 lacked credibility and consequently, held that the guilt against the Second Respondent/Accused has not been established and acquitted him, which need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in Revision. 8. In Ex.P.1 First Information Report, the complainant is Kangatharan, who has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court. In Ex.P.1, the Second Respondent (in the Revision) is mentioned as Accused. Also, along with the Second Respondent/Accused, other two outside persons to be identified are mentioned as Accused. 9. The evidence of P.W.1/Complainant is to the effect that on 16/1/2006, at about 8.00 clock in the morning, he has been taking rest on account of his ill-health and at that time, the Second Respondent/Accused's mother Chellammal has come to him and informed that in front of her daughter Subbulakshmi's house, someone has passed motion and that he informed her elders, in broad day light would not have passed motion and only small children would have passed motion and therefore, the matter need not be precipitated any further. 10. 10. Further, it is the evidence of Complainant/P.W.1 that at about 3.00 clock in the evening, the Second Respondent/Accused threatened him over the phone inter alia stating that whether he is fit to be the Panchayat President etc., and that he will not leave without murdering him and in the evening, his sick wife and himself were taking rest in the separate cots and at that time, one Thamumalai @ Thamu and another Minraj has come to see him and has been enquiring about his ill-health and suddenly (unexpectedly), the Second Respondent/Accused has come to their house and used filthy language and also said he will not leave without murdering him and by so saying has strangled his neck and immediately, he raised a noise and the nearby people also raised their voice and the people from the adjacent street have also come to the scene of occurrence. 11. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 is that at that time, the Second Respondent/Accused and the other two unidentified persons have got into the bike and has sped away and immediately, he informed the Paluvur Police Station through phone message and the Sub-Inspector of Police has come to his house and asked him to give complaint before the Police Station and accordingly, he has proceeded to the Police Station for lodging the complaint and after lodging the complaint, he asked the Police to issue him a medical memo but they have not given a medical memo and later, he has proceeded to Nagercoil Vasantham Hospital and has taken first-aid treatment and on next day, viz., on 18th, his neck has swelled and that there has been a seepage of blood and therefore, he has gone to Usha Hospital at Aralvai and from Usha Hospital, information has been given to the Police Station and on 20th, he has come from the Hospital to his house and on 19/1/2006, he has given Ex.P.1 complaint at Usha Hospital. 12. 12. P.W.1/Complainant (in his cross-examination) has deposed that the Second Respondent/Accused is working as Supervisor at Nagercoil Telephone Department and that he has not given a complaint when Police has not given him the memo and on 17/1/2006, when he has gone to Vasantham Hospital, he has not been given the treatment as an In-patient and further that at the time of giving the complaint before the Police, blood has been coming out from his neck and he has not stated about the fact of blood coming out in his petition. 13. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1/Complainant. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that on 16/1/2006, at about 11.00 clock in the morning, when she has been in her house along with her husband, at that time, the Second Respondent/Accused's mother has informed her Husband (P.W.1) that someone has passed motion in front of their house and asked him to enquire about the same. For that, her husband informed that some small children would have passed motion and thereafter, she does not know the act of the Second Respondent/Accused. Moreover, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that at about 3 p.m., in the afternoon, the Second Respondent/Accused over the phone asked her Husband (P.W.1) whether he is the President and he has not given in spite of his asking therefore, he threatened her husband by saying he will not leave without murdering him and on next day, at about 5.00 clock in the evening, the Second Respondent/Accused has come to her house and at that time, she along with her Husband (P.W.1) have been taking rest in the different cots at that time one Thanu and Minraj have been talking in their house. At that time, the Second Respondent/Accused has uttered “inspite of his asking, you have not given viz., P.W.1 and by so saying has strangled her husband's neck and at that time, her husband has raised a voice and after seeking it, nearby house people have also raised their voice by coming to the spot and at that time, the Second Respondent/Accused has sped away. 14. 14. P.W.2 (in her cross-examination) has deposed that Thiyagarajan used to come to her house frequently and also Dr.Usha will come to her house frequently and in the election, in their Village, there are two groups and her Husband (P.W.1) belongs to one group and the Second Respondent/Accused belongs to another group and that Police has not examined her after they identified the scene of occurrence to the Sub-Inspector of Police. 15. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out that in Ex.P.1 First Information Report, P.W.1/Complainant has not uttered that P.W.2 to P.W.4 have been present around him. Per contra, P.W.1/Complainant has stated that P.W.3 and P.W.4 ran towards him on hearing his noise and that the Second Respondent/Accused has gone away from the house after wielding a death threat. As such, it is candidly clear that the evidence of P.W.1/Complainant does not inspire confidence and it is not worthy of credence in regard to Ex.P.1 First Information Report especially as regards the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 around P.W.1/Complainant at the time of occurrence. 16. The evidence of P.W.3 is that he has given his daughter in marriage to P.W.1/ Complainant's relative and that the occurrence lasted for five minutes and that on 17/1/2006, at about 5.00 clock in the evening, he has gone to the house of P.W.1/ Complainant and at that time, P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2 have been there and later, Periyakulam Minraj has come there and when they have been talking in the house of P.W.1 at that time, the Second Respondent/Accused has come to the house of P.W.1 and strangled the neck of P.W.1 and that he prevented the same and driven away the Second Respondent/Accused and that the Second Respondent/Accused has uttered after seeing P.W.1 that he will not leave without murdering him and that later, P.W.1/Complainant has given a complaint to the Police. 17. P.W.4 in his evidence has deposed in similar lines as that of P.W.3 in regard to the Second Respondent/Accused strangling the neck of P.W.1/Complainant on 17/1/2006. 18. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that on 19/1/2006 at about 6.00 clock in the evening, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pazhavur Police Station has inspected the scene of occurrence and in Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar, he has signed along with Sudalaimani. 19. 18. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that on 19/1/2006 at about 6.00 clock in the evening, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pazhavur Police Station has inspected the scene of occurrence and in Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar, he has signed along with Sudalaimani. 19. P.W.6 has also deposed that when he has been in his house, he has signed in the white paper and he does not know for what purpose, he has signed. P.W.6 has treated as hostile witness. 20. P.W.7 (Doctor) has deposed that on 18/1/2006, at about 7.00 clock in the evening, when she has been in her Hospital, at that time, P.W.1/Complainant (aged about 70 years) has been brought before her for treatment and at that time, he informed that his neck has been strangled and for treatment, he has come to her and at that time, he has experienced suffocation and also he has throat pain and since he is already a heart-patient, she examined him and has given treatment and Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate given by her to him. 21. P.W.7 (in her cross-examination) has deposed that P.W.1/Complainant has taken treatment for a day and she has not stated in Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate as to when P.W.1 got injured and when he has been admitted into the Hospital and when he has been discharged and also that in the wound certificate, she has not specifically stated on what date P.W.1 has come to her for receiving treatment. 22. P.W.8 in his evidence has deposed that on 19/1/2006, based on telephone message, he has gone to Usha Private Hospital at Aralvaimozhi and recorded the statement of the patient viz., P.W.1/Complainant Kangatharan and has given the said statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pazhavur Police Station who registered the case in Crime No.22 of 2006 under Sections 448, 294 (b), 323 and 506 (i) IPC and that Ex.P.4 is the Printed Copy of the First Information Report. 23. 23. It is the evidence of P.W.9 that on 19/1/2006, at about 5.00 in the evening, when he has been in the Police Station, at about 12.00 clock in the night, he received an intimation from Aralvaimozhi Hospital and has gone to Visalam Hospital and obtained statement from Kangatharan (P.W.1) and the First Information Report under Sections 448, 294 (b), 393 and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code and also he has taken up the investigation and has gone to the scene of occurrence at about 6.00 clock in the evening and in the presence of witnesses, prepared Mahazar and sketch and also recorded the statements of witnesses 1 to 6 and also obtained the wound certificate from Visalam Hospital Doctor and also obtained a statement after examining the Head Constable and after completion of investigation on 29/1/2006 has filed a charge sheet. 24. As far as the present case is concerned, the evidence of P.W.7 Doctor (who has given to P.W.1/Complainant) bristles with infirmities, in the considered opinion of this Court. She has not taken any X-Ray on P.W.1's injury and also that she has not mentioned in Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate as to the date of admission of P.W.1 and also not stated the place, time and the manner in which P.W.1/Complainant has sustained injury. These particulars are conspicuously absent in Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1/Complainant that at the time of his accident, his wife P.W.2 has been taking rest in a cot and that P.Ws.3 and 4 have been present around his cot. Surprisingly, he has not mentioned about the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 around him in Ex.P.1 complaint. The evidence of P.W.1 is not cogent, coherent and convincing in regard to the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 at the time of scene of occurrence when tested in the light of Ex.P.1 First Information Report. To put it succinctly, the evidence of P.W.1 and other evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 are not worthy of credence so as to enable this Court to accept the same. It is quite evident that only on the evidence of Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate given by P.W.7 Doctor, the Police has filed a final report under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. It is quite evident that only on the evidence of Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate given by P.W.7 Doctor, the Police has filed a final report under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. It is to be noted that this Court has to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the impugned judgment of the trial Court suffers on account of failure of Justice. It is the duty of the High Court to look into the fact whether the Subordinate Court has acted legally and in due deference to the procedure. Also that in a Revision against Acquittal, re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court is not permissible as per decision THANKAPPAN NADAR Vs. GOPALA KRISHNAN {2002 (9) SCC – 393}. 26. A Revisional Court may have the power to correct any error in the order passed by the Magistrate but it will be beyond its powers and jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and so, on such a reassessment to arrive at a finding which is at variance with the finding recorded by Magistrate as per decision GULABOO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH {1988 (1) Crimes – 243 (All.)}. 27. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision KAMTA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH {2007 (2) Crimes – 630 (MP)], wherein it is held that the High Court would not interfere where there is material contradictions in First Information Report and evidence in First Information Report, it was stated that the Accused gave 'Danda blow', but in his evidence, the witness deposed that the Accused gave 'Kulhari blow' and the acquittal is found to be proper. 28. It is to be borne in mind that the Revision against Acquittal filed by the Complainant is maintainable. It is open to the Honourable High Court in Revision to set aside an acquittal order at the instance of private parties, even though the State may not have thought it fit to appeal to this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is some defect in procedure or there is manifest error on a point of Law and consequently, there has been a flagrant miscarriage of Justice, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in KISHAN SWAROOP V. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI (AIR 1998 SC – 990). 29. 29. It is true that the Revision against Acquittal filed by the Complainant is maintainable as per decision K.PANDURANGAN etc., V. S.S.R.VELUSAMY AND ANOTHER (AIR 2003 SC – 3318). 30. In Revision against Acquittal, at the instance of a private party, the Court would not reappreciate evidence, as per decision, BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 2002 SC – 2907), would not interfere even if an appeal against acquittal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Also, in SHINGARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (AIR 2004 SC – 124), it is held that in Revision against Acquittal filed by the Complainant, the High Court would not convert the order of Acquittal into Revision. 31. It is to be noted that the Honourable High Court while hearing a Revision, does not act as an Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring view is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done as per decision STATE OF KERALA Vs. PUTTUMANA ILLAH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODRI etc., (AIR 1999 SC – 981). 32. As far as the present case is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has taken into account the entire gamut of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has come to a resultant conclusion that the Second Respondent/Accused is not guilty under Sections 448, 294 (b), 325 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the Accused because of the reason that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court's Judgment of acquittal in respect of the Second Respondent/Accused, does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality in the eye of Law, as opined by this Court. Viewed in that perspective, the criminal Revision Petition sans merit. 33. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in C.C.No.165 of 2006 is affirmed by this Court, for the reasons assigned in this Revision.