Acquittal cannot be converted in to conviction.

1. Generally this Court is reluctant to disturb an acquittal recorded by the trial Court, in a revision against such acquittal, that too at the instance of a private party, when the State has not preferred any appeal. However, it becomes a duty to do so, inter alia when incriminating evidence of a satisfactory character is completely ignored or overlooked, and when there is a total misreading of evidence, resulting in an unwarranted acquittal, in order to redeem the course of justice, so that the grave injustice occasioned could be set right. The present is one of such cases.

2. The unfortunate petitioner, who is the father of the deceased a young son of 20 years old, and the first informant examined as P.W.I, has knocked at the doors of this Court, by presenting this revision, challenging the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.63 of 1991, on the file of the Sessions Court, Thanjavur, in respect of an offence under Section 302, I.PC.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows;-

(i) the deceased Kalaiarasan, aged about 20 years is the second son of P.W. 1 Somu Thavar, a resident of Paravakottai, having his residence at the main road itself. The deceased was having a cycle shop in front of Anna statue in the main road, in the name and style of "Vinayagar Cycle Co.". The accused Sivakumar, the 1st respondent herein, is also a resident of the same village. P.W.2 Kumarasamy and P.W.3 Thangaraj also hailed from the same village. P.W.4 Thangavelu is having a grocery shop in the main road at Paravakottai village, next to the cycle shop of the deceased, on the northern side. P.W.5 Rajangam, is owning atailoring shop, at the southern side of the cycle shop of the deceased.

.(ii) The first respondent/accused used to come to the cycle shop of the deceased and take cycle on hire charges. There were some arrears to be paid by the accused to the deceased. On 4-12-1989, in the evening, there was raining. A few hours later, the rain stopped. The deceased kept the shop closed. At about 7.30 P.M., P.W.I, the father and his son, the deceased, were talking together in front of the cycle shop. At that time, the street lights were burning. Opposite to the road, P.W.2 Kumarasamy, P.W.3 Thangaraj, and one Uthirapathy were standing and conversing with each other.

(iii) At that point of time, the accused/1st respondent herein came to the cycle shop and demanded the deceased-Kalaiarasan, to give a cycle on hire. The deceased replied:

Since it is rainy day, cycle cannot be given for hire,you leave the shop.) The first respondent, however, insisted for the cycle on hire. Then the deceased said: (You are already in arrears. Cycle cannot be given to the fellows who are in dues.) Then, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased Kalaiarasan and the 1st respondent-Sivakumar. P.W. 2, P.W.3 and another, who were standing nearby, came and tried to pacify them. But the accused exclaimed

(I have been named as a "person of debt." So, I would not simply leave, without killing him.) Even then, the witnesses persuaded and asked him to go home. But the accused said that he was insulted, and so, at any cost, he would murder him. Saying so, he suddenly took out a knife kept in his waist and stabbed on the chest of the deceased Kalaiarasan. The deceased cried"

The accused carrying the knife took to his heels towards the northern side. P,.W.2 Kumarasamy the said Uthirapathy, and P.W.3 Thangaraj chased him, but the accused has fled away.

(iv) Immediately thereafter, P.W.I Somu Thevar, the father of the deceased, with the help of his another son took the victim in a bus, which came at that time in the main road, to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi. P.W.8 Doctor examined the victim at 10.10 P.M., and found that he was already dead.

.(v) Leaving his another son near the dead body at the Hospital, P.W. 1 came to Paravakottai Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.I 1- Sub-Inspector of Police at about 10.00 P.M. This was reduced into writing by P