JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This criminal revision petition has been filed at the instance of the complainant against the acquittal of the accused/respondents. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11. 12. 2005 at about 12. 30 p. m. when the complainant was present in her house alongwith her son and nephew, the accused persons came there and destroyed her crops. When she tried to stop them, the accused/respondents gave her beatings. The matter was reported to the police and on the statement of the petitioner, FIR Ext. PW-9/A came to be recorded. The petitioner was medically examined vide MLC Ext. PW-4/B. The I. O. prepared the spot map Ext. PW-9/B and took into possession the broken pieces of bangles Ext. M-2 vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. The statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded and challan was put up before the Court. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses, while accused led no evidence and their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. 4. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused/ respondents and the said judgment was unsuccessfully assailed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the State by filing appeal, however, the same was dismissed. 5. The State has not chosen to assail the findings any further, however, it is the complainant, who has challenged the acquittal of the respondents/accused on the grounds that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as it has failed to take into consideration the oral as also the documentary evidence available on the record, therefore, the findings so recorded deserves to be set-aside. On the other hand, Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State would vehemently argue that the petitioner having failed to prove her case before the learned Courts below cannot continue with these proceedings in perpetuity, more particularly, when the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 6. However, before I deal with the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to delineate the scope and power of this Court while dealing with revision petition of the instant kind. 7. In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another , 1973 AIR(SC) 799, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 8. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu , 1979 AIR(SC) 663, the Hon''ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram , 1973 AIR(SC) 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system". 9. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , 1986 AIR(SC) 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 10. In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh , 1986 AIR(SC) 1721, the legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following terms: "It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. Even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. " 11. In Ramu @ Ram Kumar vs. Jagannath , 1994 AIR(SC) 26, Hon''ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 12. In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu , 1993 AIR(SC) 1126, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. 13. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , 1994 AIR(SC) 26 the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint. " 14. In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M. P. and another , 1997 AIR(SC) 2485, the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 1962 AIR(SC) 1788; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh , 1968 AIR(SC) 707; P. N. G. Raju vs. B. P. Appadu , 1975 AIR(SC) 1854 and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh , 1981 AIR(SC) 1415 and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice". 15. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , 1999 2 SCC 452 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. 15. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , 1999 2 SCC 452 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. " 16. In State of A. P. vs. Rajagopala Rao , 2000 10 SCC 338 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment. " 17. Having set-out the legal parameters of revisional jurisdiction, It would be necessary to refer to make a brief reference of the statement of the witnesses so as to appreciate the plea of the petitioner with respect to perversity. 18. Pw-1 Tara Devi is petitioner and complainant in this case, who stated that on 11. 12. 2005 at about 12. 30 p. m. , she was present in her house alongwith her son. When the accused persons, whose having land adjoining to her land entered and started destroying the crops and when she tried to intervene, she was given beatings, as a result whereof, she sustained injuries on her head, arm and leg. She had also lost her ear rings. 30 p. m. , she was present in her house alongwith her son. When the accused persons, whose having land adjoining to her land entered and started destroying the crops and when she tried to intervene, she was given beatings, as a result whereof, she sustained injuries on her head, arm and leg. She had also lost her ear rings. Her son Sandeep tried to save her from the clutches of the accused persons, but he also was administered beatings. She fell unconscious and when her husband came from duty, they reported the matter to the police. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was medically examined and broken bangles were also taken into possession. In cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that she was not beaten with sticks. She further stated that her children had raised alarm, but none came on the spot. She admitted that on that day the marriage of the daughter of respondents No. 1 and 4 and sister of respondents No. 2 and 3 had been fixed. She also admitted that many people had assembled in the house of the accused persons on that day. She stated that her statement was recorded in her house and she had stated that her gold ear rings had been misplaced on that day. However, she was confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. wherein this fact was not recorded. 19. Pw-2 Rajinder Singh stated that on 11. 12. 2006, he was told by his wife that she was given beatings by the accused persons. At the relevant time, his son and nephew were present in the house. The matter was reported to the police. In crossexamination this witness admitted that there was previous enmity between the parties and prior to this incident, there had been many quarrels amongst the parties. This witness obviously is not an eye witness and therefore rightly admitted that the incident had not taken place in his presence. Even though this witness stated that PW-1 was beaten with sticks and was conscious, but this was not so stated by PW-1. 20. Pw-3 Sandeep stated that on 11. 12. 2005 he heard the noise of his mother and saw that the accused persons were given beatings to his mother in the court-yard of their house. When he tried to intervene, he too was administered beatings. 20. Pw-3 Sandeep stated that on 11. 12. 2005 he heard the noise of his mother and saw that the accused persons were given beatings to his mother in the court-yard of their house. When he tried to intervene, he too was administered beatings. He further stated that his mother had sustained injuries and he too had sustained injuries. He claimed that the incident had been witnessed by Dharampal Singh. 21. Pw-4 Dr. S. S. Bawa proved the injuries on the person of PW-1. However, in cross-examination he has stated that these injuries could be possible by fall. 22. Pw-5 Vikram Chandel stated that Tara Devi was his aunt and accused persons had quarreled with her. PW-3 Sandeep tried to save her from the accused persons but he too had been given beatings. He further stated that they had raised alarm but none came to rescue his aunt. 23. Pw-6 Dharampal, who is only independent witness produced by the prosecution stated that he was not aware of date, month and time when the incident took place and further stated that by the time he reached the spot, the quarrel was already over and the accused had left. 24. Pw-7 ASI Kamal Nain has proved the broken pieces of bangles Ext. M-1 which was deposited in Malkhana. PW-8 HHC Chet Ram proved the rapat No. 6 dated 11. 12. 2005 Ext. PW-8/A. PW-9 ASI Prithvi Singh I. O. of this case stated that PW-1 had reported the matter to the Police Station and rapat Ext. PW-8/A and thereafter FIR Ext. PW-9/A was registered. The complainant was medically examined vide Ext. PW4/B. He visited the spot on 12. 12. 2005 and prepared the spot map Ext. PW-9/B and also took into possession broken bangles. 25. This in entirety is the evidence led by the prosecution and from close scrutiny of these statements, it can conveniently be concluded that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove on record that the complainant/petitioner was administered beatings by the respondents/ accused. Admittedly, none of the villagers was examined save and except PW-6 Dharampal, who too, reached the spot after the alleged quarrel had already taken place. PW1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are related witnesses and there are many contradictions in their statements as have been duly noticed by the learned Courts below. Admittedly, none of the villagers was examined save and except PW-6 Dharampal, who too, reached the spot after the alleged quarrel had already taken place. PW1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are related witnesses and there are many contradictions in their statements as have been duly noticed by the learned Courts below. While lodging the FIR, the version given by the complainant is that the accused were wandering in her field, however, when she stepped into the witness box, she put-forth entirely different version by saying that respondents No. 1 to 4 were destroying her crops. Further, she stated that she had sustained injuries on her arm, leg and other parts of the body. However, when she was medically examined, there were no injuries on her arm and leg. 26. Likewise, PW-3 son of the complainant stated that he too had been beaten up and as a result whereof, he had sustained injuries, but there is nothing on record to show that any injuries in fact had been sustained by him. He has not even stated how and in what manner and why the quarrel took place. 27. Here, it would be relevant to note that even though PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that the accused were having sticks in their hands, but PW-3 categorically stated that he did not know about the said fact. This witness has given a far more and exaggerated version regarding the injuries alleged to have been sustained by PW-1 by claiming that she had received injuries on her face and arm, which injuries, as noticed above, have not been proved on record. 28. Apart from the above, as per MLC Ext. PW-4/B, the complainant was only found to have been superficial contusion on the left side of Temporo-mandibular joint and there is no other injury which clearly belies and falsifies the version put-forth by the complainant regarding the injuries having been received by her on her head, arm and other parts of the body. 29. PW-4/B, the complainant was only found to have been superficial contusion on the left side of Temporo-mandibular joint and there is no other injury which clearly belies and falsifies the version put-forth by the complainant regarding the injuries having been received by her on her head, arm and other parts of the body. 29. Above all, it is proved on record that there are previous enmity between the parties and therefore, it is not safe for the Court to simply rely upon the testimony of the complainant and the same has to be taken as a pinch of salt for the reason that it has specifically come on record that on the date of the alleged occurrence the marriage of the daughter of respondents No. 1 and 4 and sister of respondents No. 2 and 3 was fixed and obviously, there would be number of persons gathered there. At the first place, respondents would normally not indulge in such activity on an auspicious day and if at all the alleged incident had taken place, obviously there would be number of persons who have witnessed the same. However, as observed earlier, no independent witness save and except PW-6 Dharampal has been examined by the prosecution, who too, has clearly stated that no incident whatsoever had taken place in his presence. 30. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the findings of acquittal recorded by learned Courts below are in any manner perverse. 31. Bearing in mind the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I find no reasons whatsoever much less compelling reasons to interfere with such findings. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.