Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.A. Hazarika, for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Hussain for the opposite parties No. 2 to 17.

2. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 25/2002 under Section 147/148,149/448,149/323,149/302,149/325 of the IPC whereby the accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17 were acquitted of offences charged against them.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Sri Ansar Ali was a resident of Dali Dahar Grant, where he had a dwelling house and cultivable land. On 30.10.1997 at about 6 A.M. at the instigation of Babul Ali, the accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17 trespassed the house campus of Ansar Ali and killed Kamrul Huda and also caused injuries upon the persons of Ansar Ali, Nurul Huda, Ali Ahmed, Fhakar Uddin and Rafiq Uddin by voluntarily assaulting them by means of dangerous weapons. The FIR was lodged by Sayed Ahmed Laskar, PW 1, and a crime was registered being Algapur Police Station Case No. 172/97 and the Police investigated the same. In the course of investigation Police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and got the injured persons medically treated. The post mortem was also conducted on the dead body of the deceased Kamrul Huda. On completion of the investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against Anam Uddin and the accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17 under Section 147/148/149/325/323/302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, as the offences are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The charges having been read over and explained the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses including the Investigating Officer and medical officer and the statements of the accused/opposite parties were recorded. The learned trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order convicting accused Anam Uddin and sentencing him imprisonment for the period he has already undergone and also sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months while the other co-accused persons namely the opposite parties No. 2 to 17 were acquitted. The acquittal of co-accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17, is now under challenge in the present revision petition.

4. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/informant has called upon this Court to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal by exercising the power of revision under Section 401 of the CrPC and to impose an order of conviction and sentence on the opposite parties No. 2 to 17. He has submitted that against an order of acquittal, against which the State Government has a right of appeal but no such appeal is preferred by the Govt., a private complainant like the present petitioner as informant, can approach the High Court under Section 401 and the High Court, in exercising its revisional power, can set aside the acquittal order, even by re-appreciating the evidence on record.

5. There is no difficulty for us to hold that on an application made by an informant as private party, this Court can exercise the revisional power. But there is a real difficulty for this Court to set aside an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. There is also difficulty as to how and in which cases the High Court should exercise the power of revision invoking Section 401 of the CrPC.

6. The trial Court in this case, as submitted by Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, failed to appreciate the evidence on record and passed the impugned Judgment and Order acquitting the opposite parties No. 2 to 17 and, therefore, it is incumbent upon this Court to set aside the same to prevent gross miscarriage of justice, no matter that there is a statut