This is complainant's revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 8.4.1994, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 653/92, whereby respondents accused Praveen Vishwa Karma, Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma and Dilip Vishwakarma and their co-accused persons Sudhir Vishwakarma, Piddi @ Pradeep Vishwakarma and Vinod Sen were acquitted of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC.

Police Civil Lines, Jabalpur after completing the investigation of the case registered at Crime No. 361/91, charge-sheeted as many as six accused persons, including the three respondents, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC. The accused persons were alleged to have attempted at the life of complainant Lallu Singh by causing injuries on him, in the intervening night of 11/12th of December, 1991.

The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under section 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC.

At the trial, the above charges against the accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW 1 Shivdas, PW 2 Rajaram, PW 3 Subhash, PW 4 Gulab Bai, PW 5 Lallu Singh, PW 6 Satish Kumar Mehra PW 7 Chaturbhuj Singh, PW 8 Kamal Bhan, PW 9 Manendra, PW 10 Durga Prasad and PW 11 Dr. R.K. Pyasi. The accused persons, however, did not examine any witness in their defence.

The trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, found that the evidence of solitary eye-witness PW 5 Lallu Singh suffered from serious infirmities. As there was no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW 5 Lallu Singh, the trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon his evidence and, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused persons of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC.

From the revision petition, we gather that the acquittal of the accused persons is sought to be challenged on the ground that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of injured Lallu Singh on flimsy and untenable grounds.

The Apex Court, while considering the scope of interference in a complainant's revision petition against acquittal, in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 observed in para 7 :

"7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice ...."

From the evidence of PW 2 Rajaram and PW 6 Satish Kumar Mehra, we gather that injured Lallu Singh was found lying injured in the ground of Mahakaushal College. As Lallu Singh could not disclose the names of his assailants either to PW 2 Rajaram and PW 6 Satish Kumar Mehra, no first information report was recorded at his instance. It was for the first time after five days, that on 17.12.1991 injured Lallu Singh is said to have disclosed the names of his assailants by writing their names on a paper -Ex. P-3. Injured Lallu Singh in this disclosure named as many as six persons as his assailants, namely; Vinod. Vijay, Praveen, Piddi, Dilip and Sudhir. His case diary statement n Ex. D-1, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, was recorded after more than a month on 16.1.1992, wherein also he named as many as six persons as his assailants, including accused Vinod. On 17.1.1992, his statement in the form of dying declaration -- Ex. D-2, was recorded by Naib Tehsildar, Jabalpur. In this statement (Ex. D-2) also, he named accused Vinod as one of his six assailants. Surprisingly, in his evid