ORDER : Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-02-2003 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. whereby and where under the learned trial Court acquitted respondents 1 to 8 for the charges framed under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149, Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') by affording benefit of doubt, petitioner/applicant Raju, son of deceased Dhansai and brother of Rajkumar and Ganesh (deceased in the said incident) and also brother of injured eye-witness Janakibai (PW-5) had filed the instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') against the private respondents 1 to 8. 2. The instant revision is filed on the ground that conclusion drawn by the trial Court is unwarranted by the evidence available on record, unreasonable, erroneous and also perverse, hence, liable to be set aside. As the witnesses corroborated each other and the trial Court erred in not considering the statement of the witnesses, the view taken by the trial Court is perverse, infirm and palpably erroneous view. Though the case was instituted for the murder of three persons, the trial Court gave judgment on the ground of technicalities, minor discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses which caused real and substantial injustice. The Court below gave undue importance to minor discrepancies, though they were not in relation to actual incident. The trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of eye-witness as also the injured eye-witness whose presence cannot be doubted. As the victim and accused persons are well-known, there is no any scope for misidentification or wrong identification. Any difference between the medical evidence and the occular evidence would not affect the prosecution's case adversely. Hence, it is prayed that as the prosecution proved its case against all the private respondents that they have assembled, formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon and caused murder of Rajkumar, Ganesh and Dhansai and also attempted to take life of Janakibai (PW-5), the revision may be allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed' by the learned trial Court may be set aside; further prayed that judgment of conviction and order of sentence accordingly may be passed against the private respondents. 3. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10-06-2001, at about 02.30 a.m. Raju (PW-3), son of the deceased Dhansai and brother of deceased Ganesh And Rajkumar and also brother of injured eye-witness Janakibai (PW-5) reached to police station Masturi and lodged the First Information Report against respondents 1 to 4. Police registered the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) against the above four private respondents under Sections 302, 307, 34 of the IPC and Crime No. 93/2001 was registered. In the said First Information Report, Raju (PW-3) stated that at about 10 along with his father and Janakibai (PW-5) he was going to her elder sister's house and when they reached to the Village Panchayat Bhawan, he saw that respondents Bholi, Khikhwa, Rakesh and Basant were assaulting Ganesh and Rajkumar and also uttering obscene words with threat to kill them. Respondents Khikhwa and Bholi were assaulting by battle axe and respondents Rakesh and Basant were inflicting by club. When his father Dhansai and Janakibai (PW-5) attempted to intervene, they were also beaten by above four respondents. With this, his father Dhansai and elder brother Ganesh succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself and another brother Rajkumar sustained injuries over head, fell down and became unconscious. Janakibai (PW-5) also received injuries over her leg. He saw the incident from some distance. Thereafter, he went to her another sister Ganga and thereafter informed the incident to Sarpanch and Panch; the said persons reached to the spot and noticed dead body of Dhansai and Ganesh, they also noticed Rajkumar in injured condition lying on the ground and also saw the injuries of Janakibai (PW-5). Thereafter, he reached to Police Station Masturi and stated the above facts. Inquest over dead body of Ganesh was prepared vide Ex.-P/17. Regarding deceased Dhansai, police conducted inquest vide Ex.-P/18. Police, during investigation, sent Janakibai (PW-5) and injured Rajkumar for medical examination. Doctor Krishna Mittal (PW-10) examined Janakibai (PW-5) and noticed one lacerated wound of 2 x 2 cms. present over right lower leg, swelling present; he had also noticed that movement of said leg restricted and advised X-ray and opined that injuries may be cause by hard and blunt object. He gave his report Ex.-P/11, though any such X-ray report was not adduced by the prosecution in the charge sheet. Vide Ex.-P/16 injured Rajkumar was also sent for medical examination. He gave his report Ex.-P/11, though any such X-ray report was not adduced by the prosecution in the charge sheet. Vide Ex.-P/16 injured Rajkumar was also sent for medical examination. Injured Rajkumar died in the hospital during the treatment. Doctor Hemant Dixit (PW-11) conducted the autopsy of deceased Ganesh Ram vide Ex.-P/12 and found following injuries :- (1) Incised wound on left side of mandibular area cutting left car into two parts extends to neck upper side, On internal examination, (2) Incised wound on left mandible size 18 cm x 6 cm. x cutting mandible, long vessels of left side of neck and part of trachea, clotted blood present, (3) Left side trachea partially cut, long vessel of left side of neck cut down, (4) Left mandible cut down in two pieces, The Doctor opined that the injury is ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp hard and heavy object. Cause of death is excessive bleeding from large vessel of left side of neck by incised wound. Doctor Hemant Dixit (PW-11) also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dhansai vide Ex.-P/13 and noticed following injuries :- (1) Incised wound on left side of back, below left scapular area, obliquely, size 20 cm x 5 cm x abdominal cavity depth, clotted blood present, (2) Left lower 9th, 10th and 11th ribs cut down, clotted blood present, diaphragm left side partially cut down, spleen cut down, lower part of left lung cut down, blood present in left trachea's cavity (3) Right lung pale, heart empty, brain and its membrane, liver and kidney pale. The Doctor opined that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature, caused by hard, sharp and heavy object. Cause of death is excessive bleeding from injury to vital organ by incised wound. Doctor R.K. Gupta (PW-4) conducted the autopsy on dead body of Rajkumar and noticed following injuries and gave his report vide Ex.-P/3 :- (1) Stiched wound of 5 cm. size over left parietal region of scalp, (2) Healed wound of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left arm lateral part, (3) Infected wound of 3 cm. x 2 cm. size on left costal margin posterior aspect, (4) Healed abrasion, 3 cm. x 2 cm., on back left infrascapular region, (5) Infected abrasion (wound), ½ cm. x ½ cm, extending from right infrascapular region to loin back, (6) Infected wound of 2 cm. x 2 cm. on left arm lateral part, (3) Infected wound of 3 cm. x 2 cm. size on left costal margin posterior aspect, (4) Healed abrasion, 3 cm. x 2 cm., on back left infrascapular region, (5) Infected abrasion (wound), ½ cm. x ½ cm, extending from right infrascapular region to loin back, (6) Infected wound of 2 cm. x 2 cm. in left suprascapular region back, On internal examination :- (1) Fracture of left parietal bone, clotted subdural haemotoma present, lungs pale, stomach contained huge amount of black coloured blood, mucuous, multiple erosion with bleeding, both intestine contained dark coloured blood in huge amount. The Doctor opined that the injuries are antemortem in nature. The deceased died due to shock caused by massive internal hemorrhage. (G.I. Hemorrhage). The Doctors opined that death of all the three is homicidal. Respondents Khikhwa, Bhoii, Rakesh and Basant were arrested on 10-06-2001 vide arrest memo Ex.-P/30, Ex.-P/31, Ex.-P/32 and Ex.-P/33 who gave their memorandum statement. At the instance of respondent Khikhwa, memorandum Ex.-P/19 was recorded and police seized a battle axe by Ex.-P/20 and a towel by Ex.-P/28. At the instance of respondent Rakesh, memorandum was recorded vide Ex.-P/21 and a club was seized vide Ex-P/22. Respondent Bholi gave memorandum statement vide Ex.-P/23 and police duly recovered a battle axe through seizure memo Ex.-P/24 and a towel was seized vide Ex.-P/25. Respondent Basant gave memorandum statement vide Ex.-P/26 and police seized a club vide Ex-P/27. Other respondents were arrested on 06-08-2001. Police had not recorded any memorandum and also not seized any article at the instance of remaining respondents Durga Prasad, Vinay Kumar, Punni Lal and Rangi Lal. Police, during investigation, made query regarding battle axe seized from respondent Khikhwa and respondent Bholi. Doctor Hemant Dixit (PW-11), after examination, opined that the injuries noticed over body of deceased Dhansai and Ganesh can be caused by the battle axe recovered from respondent Khikhwa @ Ant Ram and the same cannot be caused by the battle axe recovered from respondent Bholi. As the said Doctor had not conducted postmortem of deceased Rajkumar, hence, in the relevant report Ex.-P/14 it does not indicate opinion for the injury received by deceased Rajkumar. Police also recorded statement of Raju (PW-3) under Section 161 of the Code on 10-06-2001 itself and also recorded the statement of other witnesses. As the said Doctor had not conducted postmortem of deceased Rajkumar, hence, in the relevant report Ex.-P/14 it does not indicate opinion for the injury received by deceased Rajkumar. Police also recorded statement of Raju (PW-3) under Section 161 of the Code on 10-06-2001 itself and also recorded the statement of other witnesses. The statement of Janakibai (PW-5) under Section 161 of the Code was recorded on 25-06-2001 therein she stated regarding involvement of other four respondents, i.e. Durga Prasad, Vinay Kumar, Punni Lal and Rangilal. After her statement police also registered the case against other four respondents in addition and they were arrested on 06-08-2001. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against 8 private respondents before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, C.G. which was registered as Criminal Case No.328/2001. The said Judicial Magistrate committed the case vide committal order dated 20-09-2001 to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer and conducted the trial. All the 8 respondents were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 4. In order to prove guilt of respondents 1 to 8, 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. No any defence witness was examined by respondents 1 to 8. Thereafter, statement of the these respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution's case, pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in question. 5. The Court below after hearing respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 11-02-2003 acquitted all respondents 1 to 8 by affording them benefit of doubt. As per the trial Court, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and learned counsel for the State/respondent No.9 present and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant supported the grounds taken in the instant criminal revision and submitted that the trial Court ought to have relied upon the statement of injured eye witness Janakibai (PW-5) who sustained lacerated injury by hard and blunt objects and also upon the statement of Raju (PW-3) who without undue delay lodged the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) before Masturi police. The medical evidence is in corroboration with the statement of both the witnesses and as the witnesses and the accused were well known, they all belong to same village, there is no any question for wrong identification. As the First Information Report has been lodged without any delay, there may not be any opportunity to lodge a false First Information Report. Why the complainant/petitioner will falsely implicate the present respondents 1 to 8 and will save the real culprit ? Though, there are minor discrepancies in their statement, but the same are not for the material facts. As Janakibai (PW-5) was admitted in the hospital and also there was latches in the investigation, her diary' statement could only be recorded on 25-06-2001 and thereafter name of other assailants, i.e., respondents 5 to 8 were surfaced during the investigation and as police investigated the matter without proper and due care and caution as the Investigation Officer omitted to record the statement of Janakibai (PW-5) even in the hospital, there is no fault of her to give her statement. It is further submitted that as Janakibai (PW-5) was, injured, she was present in the incident and Raju (PW-3) was witnessing the incident with some distance in the dark, that is why he omitted to mention the name of respondents 5 to 8, but when statement of Janakibai (PW-5) was recorded on 25-06-2001 then only she was in a position to depose the entire facts regarding involvement of other respondents also. But, the trial Court merely relying on the technical discrepancies and without considering the fact that Raju (PW-3) and Janakibai (PW-5) in the court statement deposed the incident committed by all respondents 1 to 8 failed to appreciate the said fact and the statement of these witnesses which suffer from no any material omission, contradiction, improvement and exaggeration. The trial Court ought to have convicted respondents 1 to 8/accused. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is not well founded, findings of the trial Court are perverse, and as such, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the trial Court may be directed to do the needful as per provisions of the Code. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9/State duly assisted the Court. 9. To appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, perused the evidence adduced during the trial. 10. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9/State duly assisted the Court. 9. To appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, perused the evidence adduced during the trial. 10. As per settled law, if there is admissible evidence wrongly brushed aside/or where admissible evidence has been overlooked by the trial Court and the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, the High Court can pass orders in such cases for re-hearing under the revisional jurisdiction, High Court can call for the record to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding though it is expressly barred to convert a finding of acquittal into that of conviction but the High Court can direct for re-hearing of the matter by the court below if justified and while appreciating the High Court should confine itself only to admissibility of evidence and should not go further and appraise the evidence. If the material evidence has been overlooked by the trial Court then the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked. 11. Upon minute examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and perusal of the order of acquittal passed by the court below, it appears that Raju (PW-3) who had lodged the First Information Report immediately after the incident named therein only four respondents. Police arrested Khikhwa, Bholi, Rakesh and Basant and at the instance of those respondents, battle axe, club and other clothes were seized. Nothing was seized from respondents 5 to 8 or no any memorandum statement was recorded of these respondents, their name allegedly surfaced only after recording of diary statement of Janakibai (PW-5) dated 25-06-2001. As per the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2), it appears that Raju (PW-3), lodger of the First Information Report, had witnessed the entire incident and he mentioned only four respondents, and the other four respondents were made accused after recording of the diary statement of Janakibai (PW-5) dated 25-06-2001, i.e., after 15 days of the incident, with this, the material adduced against respondents 1 to 8 may be considered on two parts, in the first part regarding the evidence adduced for respondents 5 to 8 and in the second part regarding the evidence adduced for respondents 1 to 4. 12. Revisional scope of court is limited that too for the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding in the impugned judgment. 12. Revisional scope of court is limited that too for the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding in the impugned judgment. If in the considered opinion of this Court order passed by the court below requires consideration, this Court may direct the court below for re-hearing of the matter if justified. 13. The judgment passed by the court below is based upon the facts that names of respondents 5 to 8 do not appear in the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) lodged immediately without any delay by eye-witness Raju (PW-3) who is also son of deceased Dhansai and real brother of deceased Ganesh and Rajkumar and also as per merg (Ex.-P/34), Ex.-P/35 lodged by Raju (PW-3) wherein it is also mentioned that the incident was committed by respondents 1 to 4. In these three documents, there is no any mention of name and role of respondents 5 to 8. Also nothing is recovered from respondents 5 to 8, no any memorandum was recorded at the instance of respondents 5 to 8 and also with the fact that as per MLC report of Janakibai (PW-5), Ex.-P/11, Doctor Krishna Mittal (PW-10) after examination, noticed one lacerated wound of 2 cm. x 2 cm. on the right lower leg along with swelling and suggested for X-ray, in absence of any X-ray and any other statement of surgical specialist and other report, the Court cannot presume that the said injury was in correspondence with some fracture; also there is no any material that Janakibai (PW-5) was admitted in the hospital, the MLC report does not say about this. In absence of any evidence regarding admission of Janakibai (PW-5) in the hospital for about 13 to 14 days, the possible and plausible view taken by the Court below regarding the fact that the statement of Janakibai (PW-5) so far as it relates to role of respondents 5 to 8, is an improvement, exaggeration and afterthought looking to her statement recorded on 25-06-2001, is correct as the prosecution failed to prove that she was admitted in the hospital. Also there is no material to demonstrate that the investigation was faulty and locking to the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2), merg (Ex.-P/34 and Ex-P/35), diary statement of Raju (PW-3)-Ex.-D/2 recorded on 10-06-2001, it appears that role and involvement of respondents 5 to 8 are improvement; considering the possibility of false implication viz-a-viz the above documents, the trial Court awarded the benefit of doubt to respondents 5 to 8, the same seems to be acceptable and plausible. If two views are possible, view taken in favour of accused 5 to 8/respondents 5 to 8 cannot be held as perverse, unreasonable and erroneous. 14. The statement of Raju (PW-3) and Janakibai (PW-5) regarding involvement of respondents 5 to 8 is improvement, afterthought, exaggeration and false implication looking to the First Information Report, Ex.-P/34, Ex-P/35 which are promptly lodged by Raju (PW-3) himself and he failed to demonstrate any reason for improvement of involvement of respondents 5 to 8 in the incident, and also looking to the fact that as police recorded 161 statement of Raju (PW-3) itself on 10-06-2001, Janakibai (PW-5) was also sent for MLC vide Ex.-P/11A on 10-06-2001 and the Doctor examined her on 10-06-2001 itself, police also recorded 161 statement of Parmanand (PW-1) on 10-06-2001. With this, improvement of the involvement of Respondents 5 to 8 by witnesses Raju (PW-3) and Janakibai (PW-5) becomes suspicious and the appreciation made by the trial Court in this regard appears to be proper and justified. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the court below has not committed any wrong by acquitting respondents 5 to 8 affording them benefit of doubt. 15. On due consideration, for the reasons mentioned above, in the considered view of this Court, the case of respondents 5 to 8 where they were given benefit of doubt and it was held that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against these respondents, the judgment passed by the court below regarding respondents 5 to 8 is correct, reasonable and proper which does not require any interference. Therefore, acquittal of above respondents, i.e. respondents 5 to 8 by affording them benefit of doubt does not require any interference, hence, the same is affirmed. 16. Therefore, acquittal of above respondents, i.e. respondents 5 to 8 by affording them benefit of doubt does not require any interference, hence, the same is affirmed. 16. So far as appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, it appears that the court below has overlooked the entire material available while recording findings of acquittal by affording benefit of doubt to respondents 1 to 4. The court below got hyper-technical while appreciating the material adduced and the findings recorded by the trial Court is perverse which requires interference. We are of the considered view that the court below failed to appreciate the entire evidence adduced and thereby arrived at a conclusion which cannot be held proper. As per promptly lodged First Information Report (Ex.-P/2), merg (Ex.-P/34 and Ex.-P/35) and other facts, the prosecution had adduced evidence by examining Raju (PW-3), Janakibai (PW-5) regarding involvement of respondents 1 to 4. There is no iota of doubt regarding identification, though the incident committed in the night, but the victim and witnesses and accused were of same village, well known to each other. With this, the prosecution had adduced evidence regarding participation of respondents 1 to 4. The medical evidence is in corroboration with the statement of eye-witness and injured eye-witness regarding participation of respondents 1 to 4. The prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence regarding promptly lodged First Information Report, MLC, compliance of the Code, injuries noticed in the postmortem report, query report stating certain facts, seizure of battle axe and club from respondents 1 to 4, the presence of respondents 1 to 4, their participation, unquestioned identity. The trial Court failed to appreciate the entire evidence. The trial Court also failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by these injured witness and eye-witness regarding role of respondents 1 to 4 in the light of promptly lodged First Information Report, evidence of Janakibai (PW-5), injured eye-witness received injury though her statement was recorded after 15 days, but looking to the First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) regarding the crime and other facts, if witnesses were improving their version they are required to be appreciated for the facts which in the eyes of law are admissible and acceptable. It is required from the trial Court to appreciate the entire material before it and thereafter to record its findings not merely on the basis of hyper-technical view. It is required from the trial Court to appreciate the entire material before it and thereafter to record its findings not merely on the basis of hyper-technical view. As per settled law, revisional Court cannot go into it and appreciate entire merits which is a subject matter of the trial Court. We are of the view that findings and order of the acquittal passed by the court below for respondents 1 to 4 are perverse as the court below has overlooked the material on record and not appreciated the entire evidence on its right perspective adduced by the prosecution. 17. Consequently, the instant criminal revision succeeds in part. Impugned judgment dated 11-02-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 382/2001 so far as it relates to respondents 5 to 8 is concerned, the same is affirmed. The impugned judgment so far as it relates to respondents 1 to 4 regarding affording them benefit of doubt and acquitting the respondents 1 to 4 is concerned, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to re-hear the parties, i.e., the State and the respondents 1 to 4 and pass a judgment afresh as per provision of law without being influenced by any of the observations and appreciation of the trial Court in the judgment dated 11-02-2003.