ORDER : B. Rajendran, J. PW1, Indirani and her children have come up with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2009 made in S.C. No. 139 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai. By the said order dated 26.02.2009, A-1 to A-3 in the Sessions case, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this Criminal Revision Case, are acquitted from all the charges. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.1995 at about 5.30 am, near Mathimangalam Railway gate, A-1 voluntarily obstructed the deceased Muthu Gounder who was riding his bicycle and kidnapped him to the house of the second accused where the accused 1 to 3 have entered into a criminal conspiracy and joined together with a common intention to cause the murder of the deceased Muthu Gounder. Accordingly, the accused have tied the deceased to a pillar, strangulated him with a nylon rope and caused his death. In order to escape from the clutches of law, the accused have originally buried the body of the deceased in a pit near a Channel and thereafter, collect the remnants of the dead body in two gunny bags and threw the gunny bags in to the Vinayagar temple tank whereby caused the disappearance of the murder of the deceased. 3. PW1, Indirani has given a complaint dated 29.06.1995 to the Kalambur Police Station complaining that the whereabouts of her husband Muthu Gounder is not known. On the basis of such complaint, a case in Crime No. 240 of 1995 came to be registered under the caption 'man missing'. As the Kalambur Police authorities did not properly conduct the investigation, at the instance of PW1, the case was transferred to CBCID Police as per the order passed by this Court in WP No. 1386 of 1996 dated 15.11.1996. Ultimately, the case registered as 'man missing' was altered in to one under Section 365 of IPC. After investigation, a final report was filed on 31.07.1995 which was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arani in P.R.C. No. 4 of 1998. As the offence involved has to be tried by a Court of Sessions, the case stood transferred to the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai and it was taken on file as S.C. No. 139 of 2000. As the offence involved has to be tried by a Court of Sessions, the case stood transferred to the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai and it was taken on file as S.C. No. 139 of 2000. Thereafter, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating evidence made against them and they have denied their involvement in the offence. 4. During the course of trial, as many as 35 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Exs. P1 to P38 have been marked on the side of the prosecution and Exs. D1 to D9 have been marked on the side of the defence. The prosecution also exhibited Mos. 1 to 14 in support of their case. 5. According to the revision petitioners, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and contrary to the evidence made available during trial. The trial Court has not appreciated the factual back ground relating to the dispute between the deceased and the accused in connection with drawal of water from the deepened common well by Muthu Gounder and the accused. Such dispute exists from the year 1992 and panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the Panchayatars. Before the Panchayatars, an agreement was entered into between the deceased and the first accused for drawing water from the common well for irrigation on 26.12.1992, but the first accused did not agree to implement the terms of the agreement dated 19.12.1992. In fact, the first accused has given a complaint against the deceased on 24.02.1995 based on which a case in Crime No. 87 of 1995 was registered against the deceased Muthu Gounder and his son Sekar and they were arrested on 24.03.1995. When they were in jail, the first and second accused have installed motor and pump set and caused pumping out of water from the deepened portion of the Well of the deceased and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 19.12.1992 entered into before the Panchayatars. On 29.03.1995, the deceased came out on bail and filed a suit in O.S. No. 184 of 1995 before the Civil Court in connection with the dispute regarding drawal of water from his well. On 29.03.1995, the deceased came out on bail and filed a suit in O.S. No. 184 of 1995 before the Civil Court in connection with the dispute regarding drawal of water from his well. Thus, the motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased has been clearly established and the murder was a sequel to the long standing dispute between the accused and the deceased. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that on 29.06.1995, the deceased Gounder proceeded from his Village Madivalagam in his bicycle to meet his advocate Mr. Rajendran of Polur, but he did not return home. On the same day at about 10.15 pm, PW5 Varadhan and PW9 Varadharajan went to see A-2 Jayachandran at his farm house for consulting about a pro-note case since A-2 happened to be the advocate clerk of Mr. Rajendran, Advocate. At that time PW5 went inside the house of A-2 and saw the deceased Muthu Gounder tied to a pillar by a rope. PW5 also witnessed that A-1 and A-2 held a nylon coir around the neck of the deceased and when enquired by PW5, they have asked him to get out of the place since they are trying to get a statement from the deceased. The statement of PW5, an eye witness to the above incident, was grossly ignored by the trial Court while acquitting the accused. In this context, PW1 has given the instant complaint on 08.07.1995 and a case under the caption "man missing" was registered, however, the police authorities have not seriously conducted the investigation, hence, PW1 has approached the District Collector and other higher authorities to conduct proper investigation in this case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the father in law of A-1 is an influential person in the locality and he wanted to ensure some how or the other investigation is not conducted properly. Ultimately, at the instance of the order passed by this Court, the investigation in to the murder of the deceased stood transferred to the file of C.B.C.I.D. Only after the CBCID has taken up the investigation on the basis of the order passed by this Court, the accused were arrested. During the course of investigation, the accused have admitted having committed the murder of the deceased. During the course of investigation, the accused have admitted having committed the murder of the deceased. As per the confession dated 30.06.1995, A-1 and A-2 tied the deceased to a pillar in the farm house of A-2 and strangulated him with a nylon rope, which resulted in his death. With the help of A-3 and A-4, initially the deceased was berried in a pit and thereafter, they have exhumed the body, collected the remnants of the body in a gunny bag and threw it in the temple tank near the Railway Station. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that it is on the basis of the confession statement of the accused 1 to 4, the material objects projected in this case have been recovered. The trial Court did not consider any of the admissions made by the accused in such confession statement before the CBCID police. The trial Court also ignored the statement of PW-4, an eye witness to the incident. PW4 has categorically stated that he saw the deceased alive in the farm house of A-2. Further, the evidence of PW10, who has deposed about the presence of the accused 1 to 3 on the date of occurrence has been ignored by the trial Court. The trial Court also ignored the evidence of PW18, Doctor relating to the cause of death of the deceased, as unreliable. Merely because the cause of death has not been disclosed by the Doctor, it will not week the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that the evidence of PW4 to 7 categorically brought out the motive behind the murder and it was totally ignored by the trial Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the prosecution would contend that the prosecution has projected all the possible evidence in this case and the trial court has appreciated the entire materials placed before it and passed the order of acquittal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 would contend that this case has got a chequered history. Originally, a 'man missing' case was registered on the complaint given by PW1, complaining about missing of her husband. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 would contend that this case has got a chequered history. Originally, a 'man missing' case was registered on the complaint given by PW1, complaining about missing of her husband. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute with regard to drawl of water from the deepened common well between the deceased and A-1. It is alleged that there was an agreement entered into between the first accused and deceased on 20.12.1992, which the first accused refused to accept. In connection with this dispute, A-1 has given a complaint dated 24.02.1995 based on which the deceased and his son were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the deceased came out on bail. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that A-1 had installed motor pump to draw water from the well in dispute. With this motive, according to the prosecution, the first accused way laid and kidnapped the deceased when he was proceeding in his bicycle and strangulated him in the farm house of A-2. It is further alleged that the deceased was berried in a pit and later the body was exhumed and thrown in the temple tank. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 would contend that the superimposition test conducted on the body of the deceased did not disclose the cause of death of the deceased. Even the postmortem conducted did not disclose that the death of the deceased was due to strangulation. Rather, the Doctor who performed the postmortem has stated that the death would have occurred three months prior to the date of postmortem, whereas, according to the case of the prosecution the deceased died two years before such date i.e., on 29.06.1995 but the bones, alleged to be that of the deceased was collected in the year 1997. Further PW4 who was projected as an eye witness by the prosecution has not spoken to about the incident for at least two years. PW4 did not disclose the incident to any one for a substantial period and therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved his evidence. The learned counsel would further contend that the motive for murder has not been established or it was not clearly proved by the prosecution. PW4 did not disclose the incident to any one for a substantial period and therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved his evidence. The learned counsel would further contend that the motive for murder has not been established or it was not clearly proved by the prosecution. These discrepancies in the case projected by the prosecution led to the trial court acquitting the accused. 11. I heard the arguments advanced at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 4. I have carefully examined the materials placed by both sides, including the order passed by the trial Court. 12. At the instance of PW1, on 08.07.1995, a case of 'man missing' was registered by the Kalambur Police in Crime No. 240 of 1995. Two years after registration of such case, at the instance of this Court, the CBCID police have taken up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, confession statement of the accused have been recorded. 13. Before proceeding to analyse the correctness or otherwise of the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, it is just and necessary to examine the evidence of PW5, Varadhan, who was projected as an eye witness in this case. According to PW5, he was A-1 and A-2 holding a nylon rope around the neck of the deceased on 29.06.1995 in the farm house of A-2. When he questioned the same, he was allegedly informed by the A-1 and A-2 that they are attempting to get a statement from the deceased and asked him to go. But unfortunately, A-5 did not disclose this incident to any one even after registration of a case under the caption 'man missing' at the instance of PW1 before the Kalambur Police Station. The fact remains that PW5 is closely related to the deceased family, however, he did not say anything about the incident to any one, including PW1, for about two years. Had it been true that PW5 saw the deceased held in captive by A-1 and A-2 and a man missing complaint was registered at the instance of PW1 complaining that the whereabouts of her husband were not known, definitely, PW5 ought to have disclose having seen the deceased in captive by A-1 and A-2 to any one, at least to PW1. Rather, PW5 did not disclose the alleged incident to any one at any point of time. In the deposition of PW5, he has deposed that the incident has happened three months prior to Pongal festival, meaning thereby the incident happened during the English month of January. PW5 also deposed that when the deceased was alive, he used to visit him weekly once and he knew his wife and children very well. While so, it is not known as to why PW5 did not disclose the incident to PW1 or any one especially when he alleged to have seen the deceased alive in the farm house of PW2. Even PW5 admitted that he did not disclose the incident to any one, including PW1 or her family members. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence of PW5 as he cannot be construed to be an eye witness to the alleged incident in which the deceased was killed. The trial Court has also correctly pointed out the discrepancy in his evidence especially when he has deposed that the occurrence took place during Pongal festival which is factually incorrect as the occurrence took place during June 1995. 14. The next evidence to be considered is PW18, Dr. S. Prabhakaran. PW18 in his deposition has opined that having regard to the size of the bones recovered in this case, he has concluded that the deceased would have died few months before. He has however deposed that the exact cause for the death could not be ascertained. The exact version of PW18 is as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 15. It is seen from the deposition of PW18 that he had performed the postmortem in this case on 04.02.1997 at about 12.15 p.m. In his postmortem report, he has stated that as per the report relating to the age of the bone, the deceased could have died few months prior to the date of postmortem. Whereas, according to the prosecution, the deceased died on 29.06.1995. Thus, the medical evidence in this case did not support the case projected by the prosecution. In fact, PW18 was re-examined on 20.11.2008. In his re-examination, PW18 has deposed that as per the forensic report furnished by Professor Dr. Santhakumkar, the deceased could have died a few months prior to the report. Even during the reexamination of PW18, nothing could be elicited regarding the time of death. In fact, PW18 was re-examined on 20.11.2008. In his re-examination, PW18 has deposed that as per the forensic report furnished by Professor Dr. Santhakumkar, the deceased could have died a few months prior to the report. Even during the reexamination of PW18, nothing could be elicited regarding the time of death. Thus, definitely, there is a doubt regarding the time of death of the deceased, as projected by the prosecution, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court. 16. PW29 is another Doctor examined on the side of the prosecution. PW29 was the Assistant Professor in the Forensic Sciences Department during the relevant period of his deposition. PW29 has deposed having examined the bones collected by the prosecution and stated that the deceased could have died few months from the date of his report. When PW29 was asked to depose as to the timing of death, he deposed that there is a possibility that the deceased could have died 22 to 24 months prior to his examining the bones. But in the cross-examination, PW29 admits that after his report relating to examination of the bones at the first instance, he has no option to re-examine the bones. PW29 has exactly deposed as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 17. Similarly, PW30, who was the Assistant Director of Forensic Science during the relevant period. Thus, even PW30 examined on the side of the prosecution could not depose as regards the exact cause of death of the deceased. 18. The next evidence to be appreciated is the defacto complainant/PW1. Even PW1 in her deposition has deposed that the occurrence took place during Pongal festival, to mean that the occurrence took place in the month of January, rather, it took place, according to the prosecution, on 29.06.1995. PW1, being the wife of the deceased, could not even say the exact month during which her husband went missing or his whereabouts could not be ascertained. 19. PW9, who said to have accompanied PW5 on the occurrence date has deposed that he accompanied PW5 to the spot, however, he deposed that he did not see anything as alleged by the prosecution. PW5 has gone to the extent of deposing that he was compelled and threatened by the police to make such a statement as though he accompanied PW9 on the date of occurrence. 20. PW5 has gone to the extent of deposing that he was compelled and threatened by the police to make such a statement as though he accompanied PW9 on the date of occurrence. 20. Another important aspect for consideration is the alleged recovery of Bicycle, marked as MO-1. First of all in the complaint, it is not brought out that the deceased went in a bicycle to meet the advocate. According to PW3, Moorthi, he came to know through his brother-in-law that the deceased went to meet his advocate on the relevant date by cycle. It is further deposed that on 29.06.1995, after three days of the alleged occurrence, the cycle was recovered near the Electricity Board office and it was informed to him by the Watchman of that office. Further, the prosecution has not brought out any evidence relating to the identity of the cycle said to have been owned by the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 relating to recovery of bicycle is not proved in a manner known to law. PW29 is Rajendran, Advocate, with whom the deceased has entrusted the civil case relating to the water dispute. According to the prosecution, the deceased proceeded to meet PW29 on the relevant date. However, PW29 did not say as to whether the deceased came to his office by cycle. 21. Before the trial Court, PW4 has turned hostile and he did not support the case of prosecution. Similarly, PW6 also turned hostile. PW10 deposed that he knows the accused Jayachandran and his land is adjacent to the land of Jayachandiran. PW10 was projected to depose as to the digging of pit by the accused to bury the dead body. According to PW10, he saw the accused Jayachandran (A-2) and his wife dugging the pit and collecting something in a gunny bag 10 to 12 years before the date of his deposition. He further deposed that the gunny bag was thereafter thrown in to the temple tank by A-2 and A-4, Murugan. However, PW10 did not question the accused as to what is being thrown in the temple tank or he disclosed such incident to any one. Further, PW10 deposed that he did not see A-4 earlier and he do not know him. PW10 also did not depose specifically as to the date and time of such incident seen by him. 22. However, PW10 did not question the accused as to what is being thrown in the temple tank or he disclosed such incident to any one. Further, PW10 deposed that he did not see A-4 earlier and he do not know him. PW10 also did not depose specifically as to the date and time of such incident seen by him. 22. PW13, Balasubramanian, was examined to speak about the manner in which confession statement was recorded from A-2 by the CBCID officials. According to the prosecution, based on the confession of A-2, the material objects namely Mos 4 to 8 were recovered. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, there is nothing on record to show that accused have used Mos 4 to 8 in the commission of offence and mere recovery of Mos 4 to 8 will not strengthen the case of the prosecution. In fact, A-2 has stated that he was compelled and coerced by the police officials to confess to the crime and his statement was not voluntary. 23. A cumulative reading of all the evidences projected by the prosecution would clearly indicate that the prosecution has not properly proved the motive for the murder. The prosecution failed to prove the date and time of the death of the deceased. The prosecution also came to be launched against the prosecution two years after the death of the accused. The medical evidence projected by the prosecution did not support the ocular evidence projected by the prosecution. The trial Court, on appreciation of all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the material evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it is unsafe to base an order of conviction against the accused. Such a conclusion arrived at by the court below, in my opinion, does not call for any interference by this Court. 24. It is well settled proposition of law that an order of acquittal cannot be ordinarily be interfered with by this Court in exercise of it's revisionary power unless it is shown that the order passed by the trial Court is materially irregular, perverse and there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 24. It is well settled proposition of law that an order of acquittal cannot be ordinarily be interfered with by this Court in exercise of it's revisionary power unless it is shown that the order passed by the trial Court is materially irregular, perverse and there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the court below also pointed out glaring inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses, delay in launching the prosecution against the accused and the fact that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence projected by the prosecution. Such a conclusion arrived at by the Court below, in my opinion, is based on materials available on record and it cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. In this context, it is useful to extract the relevant portion of the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Murugesan and others v. State through Inspector of Police) 2012 AIR SCW 5627 wherein it was held as follows:- "27. It will be necessary for us to emphasise that a possible view denotes an opinion which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A view taken by a court lower in the hierarchical structure may be termed as erroneous or wrong by a superior court upon a mere disagreement. But such a conclusion of the higher court would not take the view rendered by the subordinate court outside the arena of a possible view. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by a court has to be tested on the basis of what the superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion which can reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact where it is agreed upon or not by the higher court. The fundamental distinction between the two situations have to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court. 28. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court. 28. A consideration on the basis on which the learned trial court had founded its order of acquittal in the present case clearly reflects a possible view. There may, however, be disagreement on the correctness of the same. But that is not the test. So long as the view taken is not impossible to be arrived at and reasons therefore, relatable to the evidence and materials on record, are disclosed any further scrutiny in exercise of the power under Section 378 Cr.P.C. was not called for." 25. Similarly, in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Hydru v. State of Kerala) (2004) 13 SCC 374 , it was held that it is well settled that in a revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been over looked or misread by the subordinate Court. If upon reappraisal of evidence, two views are possible, it is not permissible even for the appellate Court in appeal against acquittal to interfere with the same, much less in revision where the powers are much narrower. In the present case on hand, this Court, on scrutiny of the order passed by the Court below, can only hold that there is no procedural or material irregularity in arriving at a conclusion to acquit the accused and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. 26. In the result, the order dated 26.02.2009 made in S.C. No. 139 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai stands confirmed. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.