JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in Criminal Challan titled State vs. Bachan Singh and others, whereby the respondent Nos.1 to 3 accused in the aforesaid challan have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 307/148/149 RPC & 4/25 Arms Act. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant revision are that on 04.09.2000 at around 9 pm when petitioner No.1 along with two brothers i.e petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sitting on the roof top of their house which is located in village Kothi Khour of Tehsil R.S. Pura, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and their father namely Bachan Singh along with one Mastan Singh who are the close relatives of the petitioners started abruptly abusing the petitioners in view of the parties having animosity with respect to the landed property. The abuses were hurled by accused Bachan Singh and respondent No.1. The petitioners when tried to pacify the accused persons, the situation took an ugly turn and the accused persons consisting of Bachan Singh (since dead), respondent Nos.1 to 3 and accused Mastan Singh came over the roof top of the petitioners and starting assaulting them. Accused Bachan Singh was carrying a sword in his hands and who inflicted deadly assault on the persons of the petitioners with intent to kill them, as a result of which they received grievous injuries. The other accused persons were carrying lathis and they also inflicted injuries to the petitioners with lathis which they were carrying. In the said brutal attack, petitioner No.1 received grievous injury on his left wrist from the blow of sword which was inflicted by the accused Bachan Singh. Further, the accused Swaran Singh also hit the petitioner No.1 with the lathi as a result of which the complainant received injuries on his left arm. After causing brutal injury to the petitioner No.1, the accused Bachan Singh with his sword hit the petitioner No.2 and he received injuries near his left eye and other accused persons hit him with lathis also. After causing brutal injury to the petitioner No.1, the accused Bachan Singh with his sword hit the petitioner No.2 and he received injuries near his left eye and other accused persons hit him with lathis also. After assaulting petitioner No.2, accused Bachan Singh proceeded towards another brother of the complainant i.e petitioner No.3 and hit him with the sword on his head four to five times continuously and rest of the accused persons also hit him by use of lathis thereby causing grievous hurt and injuries to petitioner No.3. In the aforesaid assault the petitioners were brutally injured by the accused persons with the common intention and object of killing them. After hearing the hue and cry the sister of the petitioners namely Surinder Kour, who was roaming in the compound of the house, rushed upstairs and witnessed the whole incident and when she tried to save her brothers, the accused persons also assaulted her with lathis as a result of which fell down in the state of unconsciousness. It is further contended that thereafter the petitioners were taken to police station in a bleeding state by their brother-in-law namely Surat Singh and on report made by all the petitioners, they were referred immediately to Sub Division Hospital, R.S. Pura from where in view of their serious injuries having been suffered by them, were referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu where they remained admitted for considerable time and due to providing of timely treatment to them, their lives could be saved. For the aforesaid incident, an FIR No.221 of 2000 dated 04.09.2000 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 147, 148 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act came to be registered with Police Station R.S. Pura against the accused persons namely, Bachan Singh, Swaran Singh, Rajinder Singh sons of accused Swaran Singh, Assa Singh & Mastan Singh both sons of Bachan Singh. On completion of investigation, a criminal challan came to be presented before the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu. However, a separate challan against accused Mastan Singh was filed in view of his being a juvenile. It is further contended that the police while presenting the challan did not annex the significant documents i.e medical records of the petitioners pertaining to the grievous injuries suffered by them. Sessions Judge, Jammu. However, a separate challan against accused Mastan Singh was filed in view of his being a juvenile. It is further contended that the police while presenting the challan did not annex the significant documents i.e medical records of the petitioners pertaining to the grievous injuries suffered by them. However, the said medical records were placed on record by the petitioners after seeking necessary permission from the Court, which medical records being part of the challan prima facie proves that the grievous injuries suffered by the complainant and his two brothers. It is further stated that in the aforesaid assault on the persons of the petitioners, the left arm of petitioner No.1 was broken and his not so far been properly cured. Petitioner No.3 received 42 stitches on his head. It is further stated that accused persons in order to harass and pressurize the petitioners also got a counter FIR registered against them being FIR No.222 of 2000, challan in reference whereof was filed in which the petitioners and their father have been acquitted by the Court of learned JMIC, R.S. Pura in 2010. It is further contended that accused Bachan Singh during the pendency of the trial has expired. The learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial instead of convicting respondent nos.1 to 3 has passed the judgment dated 16.01.2017 whereby all the accused persons i.e respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted of the charge. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved of the judgment impugned dated 16.01.2017, therefore, seek to challenge the same on the following: (a) That the judgment impugned dated 16.01.2017 passed by the learned trial Court is against the law and facts. (b) That in the trial the prosecution adduced evidence of as many as 15 witnesses in support of the prosecution story and majority of these witnesses in their evidence have duly supported the prosecution version and proved the occurrence as well as the crime committed by the accused persons. However, the learned trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence in its true perspective resulting in acquittal of respondents 1 to 3. (c) That the petitioners in their evidence have fully corroborated the prosecution version with minute details of the incident. However, the learned trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence in its true perspective resulting in acquittal of respondents 1 to 3. (c) That the petitioners in their evidence have fully corroborated the prosecution version with minute details of the incident. In their statements before the trial Court, all the petitioners who were attacked and assaulted by the accused persons have narrated with all details and the circumstances in which they were brutally attacked by the accused persons. Besides them, in their evidence the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioners also narrated the entire prosecution version in its entirety and with utmost truthfulness. Their statements have fully proved the prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial Court did not find favour with the said prima facie evidence and passed the judgment impugned on such grounds and pleas which are not legally tenable. (d) That during the investigation, the accused persons admitted the assault having been made by them upon the petitioners and on the disclosure made by the accused persons, the police also recovered the weapon of offence i.e sword as well as lathis which were used by the accused persons in making assault on the petitioners. Disclosure statement has also been proved by the PW Madan Lal Head Constable during the trial. The circumstance with respect to recovery of weapons of offence was also proved during the trial, however, the learned trial Court again did not consider this vital aspect of the case and passé the judgment impugned, which is not legally sustainable. (e) That in the trial the intention of the accused persons to kill the petitioners has been properly proved. The manner in which the assault was carried out by the accused persons was aimed at elimination of the petitioners, but because of timely intervention of brother in law of the petitioners and few other persons, they were saved from the clutches of the accused persons otherwise the injuries inflicted upon them would have been proved fatal to their lives. The learned trial Court despite being fully aware of these circumstances, did not find favour with the prosecution and in a manner which has no sanctity of law, has passed the judgment impugned, which on the face of it is not legally sustainable. The learned trial Court despite being fully aware of these circumstances, did not find favour with the prosecution and in a manner which has no sanctity of law, has passed the judgment impugned, which on the face of it is not legally sustainable. (f) That the judgment impugned is further bad in the eyes of law that the same has been passed by the learned trial Court with non-application of mind. In paragraph 28 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution witness PW5 Surat Singh has turned hostile whereas in preceding portion of the same paragraph, the learned trial Court has specifically held that PW5 Surat Singh has supported the prosecution case. This contradiction in the judgment impugned renders the entire judgment highly vitiated as the same has been passed by the learned trial Court without properly looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. On this ground also, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. (g) That the findings returned by the learned trial Court that PW Surat Singh was a witness to the disclosure made by the accused persons, but he has not supported the prosecution in that aspect also and the disclosure statement in absence of corroboration by this independent witnesses has not proved, to be relied upon, are highly perverse and contrary to the records. It is respectfully submitted that the PW Surat Singh was not at all a witness to the disclosure statement rather it was PW Head constable Madan Lal and PW Joginder Singh. Pw Head Constable Madan Lal had duly corroborated the disclosure statement in the trial and proved the same. These contradictions prove fatal to the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court which clearly shows that the judgment impugned has been passed by the learned trial Court without proper evaluation of the evidence adduced before the learned trial Court. (h) That the learned trial Court has further committed a serious illegality while passing the judgment impugned. The counter FIR filed against the petitioners after presentation of challan was properly tried by the trial Court in which the petitioners have been acquitted. (h) That the learned trial Court has further committed a serious illegality while passing the judgment impugned. The counter FIR filed against the petitioners after presentation of challan was properly tried by the trial Court in which the petitioners have been acquitted. The findings retuned by the learned trial Court that it will not be safe to place reliance on the statement of injured witnesses as the charge sheet against the petitioners was also filed out of the same occurrence, is highly perverse and against the provisions of law, as the petitioners have already been acquitted in the other charge sheet presented against them. (i) That viewed from any angle, the order impugned is ex-facie contrary to the factual and legal position, the same cannot sustain the test of judicial scrutiny, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. This Court vide order dated 09.03.2017, issued notice and directed that operation of the judgment impugned shall remain subject to outcome of this revision petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Law is now settled that revision filed at the instance of private party/complainant/injured against the acquittal order is maintainable before High Court under section 438 Cr.P.C. though State may not have thought fit to appeal. But power under this provision has not to be exercised causally, especially when State has not questioned acquittal. Further, High Court under this section cannot convert acquittal into conviction, but can remand the case back to trial Court for reconsideration afresh after setting aside acquittal recorded by court below. This “revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of appeal. 7. A finding of fact recorded by court below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it but “to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the high court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re appreciate or re access the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice-versa. Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. 8. Coming to present case in order to see perversity of judgement as pointed by counsel for petitioner , I have gone through the evidence on record and finding of court below and reasoning given by court below in acquitting the court. 9. Briefly facts of case is that on 4.9.2000 at 22.25 hrs Joginder Singh accompanied by his brothers namely Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh lodged verbal report before police station R.S. Pura that Accused Swarn Singh and Bachan Singh sons of Chanda Singh , who were inimical to them over land dispute started abusing them at 9 PM , when they were at roof; when they asked them to refrain , they both along with one Rajinder Singh and Billa Singh and Mastan Singh s/o Bachan Singh with criminal intention armed with sword and sticks came on roof; they all with criminal intention to kill attacked on them; Bachan Singh who was having sword inflicted blow on head of Joginder Singh thereby causing grievous injury Swarn Singh gave a bow with stick; Bachan Singh also gave a blow of sword to Balwinder Singh causing injury near to eye and Rajinder Singh gave blow of stick ; Bachan Singh and Billa inflicted several blows with sword and sticks on Mohinder Singh thereby causing grievous injuries Mastan Singh also gave inflicted blows with sticks on Joginder Singh and his brothers. On this report FIR no. 221/2000 u/s 307/148/149/RPC and 4/25 A. Act was registered and police after completing the investigation produced challan before court ; accused Mastan Singh was juvenile so separate challan was produced before competent court. 10. During trial all the injured PWs Joginder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh were examined; PW Surinder Kour sister of complainant has also been examined. These all were injured and eye witnesses. 10. During trial all the injured PWs Joginder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh were examined; PW Surinder Kour sister of complainant has also been examined. These all were injured and eye witnesses. They all have stated against the accused persons and have narrated the way in which occurrence took place and accused attacked on them; PWs Jasbir Singh, Om parkash, Karam Singh and Surat Singh turned hostile. PW HC Madan Lal is witness to disclosure statements of accused. PW DR. Chitra Vaisnavi has explained and admitted the medical certificates of injured; she has proved cause of injuries sustained by injured persons. PW ASI Krishan Chand is I/O; PW K.K. Raina and Massod Sadiq are Forensic Experts who have examined the seized articles and issued certificates. Accused also produced DWs Sher Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Dr. Chitra Vaisnavi . 11. Court below after conclusion of trial acquitted the accused persons; it is worthwhile to mention here that accused Bachan Singh has died during trial. There had also been registered counter FIR no. 222/2000 by concern police with regard to same occurrence u/s section 323/34 RPC and 4/25 A. Act. against all injured persons and their father Karam Singh. In said challan all the accused /injured herein and their father have been acquitted as observed by court below in the judgment. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 & 32 of the said judgment as under:- “28. All the accused have been charged for having made a murderous assault on PWs Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Balvinder Singh, all brothers and their sister Surinder Kour while making an intervention was also assaulted causing injuries to all of them. PWs 1, 2 and 3 all the injured and PW9 Suirinder Kour have made statements against accused that they had come on the roof of their house to assault the injured armed with a sword and a khokhari. PW1 Joginder Singh who besides being an injured is also complainant in the case has stated that his father PW7 Karam Singh was also present at their home at the time of occurrence whereas PW7 Karm Singh has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever as he has denied having any knowledge about the occurrence. PW4 Jasbir Singh, a close relative of both the parties and cited as an eye witness has not supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Surat Singh brother-n-law of injured witnesses has supported the prosecution case and also stated that PWKarm Singh was present on spot which fact has been denied by PW Karm Singh himself. PW5 Surat Singh and PW6 Om Parkash have also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. PW Surat Singh was a witness to disclosure made by accused but he has not supported the prosecution in that aspect also and the disclosure statement in absence of corroboration by this independent witnesses has not proved, to be relied upon. 29. Police had registered two cases, vide two separate FIR Nos. 221/2000 and 222/2000 at the same police station, arising out of the same occurrence. In the counter case filed at the behest of the accused herein, PWs Mohinder Singh, Balvinder Singh, Joginder Singh and their father Karm Singh found accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, showing the occurrence at 2245 hrs on 04.09.2000 on the roof of the house of accused Swarn Singh. IN the case registered vide FIR No.222/2000 against PWs 1 to 3 and their father, complainant was accused Swarn Singh. In that case Balvinder Singh had been accused of having passed lewd comments against daughter-in-law of accused Swarn Singh. PWs 1,2,3 and 7 had been charge sheeted in that case by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff) on 22.01.2001 and were acquitted vide judgment dated 20.03.2010. The file of that case had also been called and it appears that both the cases had been registered out of the same occurrence, though no separate cases were required to be registered and it was the duty of the police to formulate the charge sheet out of one case. 30. PWs injured and their brother-in-law PW Surat Singh had denied any persons from the complainant party had been injured whereas it had been a case against them as accused before the Magisterial Court for having caused injuries to the complainant party. 31. PW14 Dr. 30. PWs injured and their brother-in-law PW Surat Singh had denied any persons from the complainant party had been injured whereas it had been a case against them as accused before the Magisterial Court for having caused injuries to the complainant party. 31. PW14 Dr. Chitra Vaishnavi who has examined the injured in this case has also been examined by the defence as defence witness has stated that she had examined Bachan Singh and Swarn Singh on 04.09.2000 at 11.20 PM and found lacerations and abrasions on their persons. This means that the injured in this case had made false statement that it was only they, who had been injured and none from the complainant party. PWs 1 and 3 have stated details of sequence of blows by each of the weapon whereas PW2 Mohinder Singh denied having knowledge as to who had beaten him and with what, due to darkness. In view of two different sets of charge sheets one against complainant party and other against accused arising out of the same occurrence, it will not be safe to place reliance on the statements of injured witnesses and for not having been supported by their father with regard to the occurrence and also no independent witness has corroborated their case. 32. Having regard to the above discussion, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case to bring home the charge against the accused for the commission of any of the offence. Accused No.1 Bachan Singh had died during the trial and the case thus abates against him whereas all other accused, for want of cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence, are acquitted of the charge. Their bail and persona bonds shall stand released. Seized articles shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal period. Articles seized, if any, during the personal search of the accused shall stand released in their favour. The file received from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff) R.S. Pura is directed to be sent back forthwith.” 12. Their bail and persona bonds shall stand released. Seized articles shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal period. Articles seized, if any, during the personal search of the accused shall stand released in their favour. The file received from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff) R.S. Pura is directed to be sent back forthwith.” 12. The ground taken by counsel for petitioners that judgment impugned is bad in the eyes of law, because in paragraph 28 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has held that the prosecution witness PW5 Surat Singh has turned hostile and has not supported the disclosure statement whereas in preceding portion of the same paragraph, the learned trial Court has specifically held that PW5 Surat Singh has supported the prosecution case and so this contradiction in the judgment renders the entire judgment highly vitiated, is not tenable because I have carefully gone through the evidence on record and relevant papers in the file of court below. As per challan, PW Surat Singh is ocular witness and also witness to recoveries of weapon of offences; he is not witness to disclosure statements of accused as is evident from these disclosure memos. This witness has not been turned hostile during trial. Whereas one of witness PW Joginder Singh s/o Chankar Singh to disclosure statements of accused persons, has been turned hostile. So there may be a mistake of name of witness while writing the judgment by presiding officer and instead of PW Joginder Singh, the name of Surat Singh has been mentioned. 13. Another ground taken by counsel for petitioner is that, trial Court has misunderstood the law and held that it will not be safe to place reliance on the statements of injured witnesses as the charge sheet against the petitioners/injured witnesses was also filed out of the same occurrence and the they have already been acquitted. 14. I have considered this aspect of matter and law on the point. 15. The Apex Court while considering the manner of disposal of cross-cases, in Sudhir and Others Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001)2 SCC 688 has observed in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment to the effect that:- "8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. State of M.P., reported in (2001)2 SCC 688 has observed in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment to the effect that:- "8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter-case" by some High Courts and "cross-cases" by some other High Courts. Way back in the nineteen hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller and Cornish, J.J.) made a suggestion (Goriparthi Krishtamma), In Re1 that "a case and counter-case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same court; and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other". "9. Close to its heels Jackson, J., made an exhortation to the then legislature to provide a mechanism as a statutory provision for trial of both cases by the same court (vide Krishna Pannadi V. Emperor 2). The learned Judge said thus :- There is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter-cases, a defect which the legislature ought to remedy. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both cases is finished." Several High Courts have reiterated the need to follow the practice of trial of case and counter case by the same court as a necessary legal requirement for preventing conflicting decisions regarding one incident. The Apex Court in the case of Nathi Lal V. State of U.P., reported in 1990 Supp SCC 145 has reiterated the principle of trial of case and counter case in paragraph no.2 which reads as follows:- "2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross-cases, is to direct that the same learned judge must try both the cross-cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross-case and after recording all the evidence he must hear arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross-case and after recording all the evidence he must hear arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross-case cannot be looked into. Nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross-case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross-case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other." The purpose of trying the case and counter case by the same court and simultaneous hearing of the same and pronouncement of the judgment by the same judge or Magistrate one after the other has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir and Others V. State of M.P. (supra). Paragraph no.10 of the judgment reads as follows:- "10. We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross-cases shall be tried by the same court, can be summarized thus: (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counter-case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident." 16. In present case as is evident from facts and circumstances of case, it is admitted case that two counter FIRs no. 221/2000 u/s section 307/148 149 RPC and 4/25 A. Act against respondents and FIR no. 222/2000 u/s 323/34 RPC and 4/25 A. Act against petitioners, were lodged. But no efforts was made by any parties for conducting the trial of cases, simultaneously by one Court. 17. 221/2000 u/s section 307/148 149 RPC and 4/25 A. Act against respondents and FIR no. 222/2000 u/s 323/34 RPC and 4/25 A. Act against petitioners, were lodged. But no efforts was made by any parties for conducting the trial of cases, simultaneously by one Court. 17. Now this court in this revision cannot say that court below has done illegality of law by not relying on the statements of injured witnesses. The judgment of court below is reasoned judgment. 18. As already held this court while exercising power under revision, cannot appreciate the whole evidence on record and give different finding. There may be two views possible, but once trial court has recorded the finding of acquittal after appreciating the facts and law, which is not gravely perverse in nature , this court cannot set aside that finding by holding that other view of conviction is possible. 19. In view of above, this revision is dismissed. Record of court below be sent back.