J.S. Bedi, J.
1. The respondents were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, and also under Section 201, read with Section 149, Section 148 and Section 147 of the same Code. They were acquitted by Shri C. S. Tiwana, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, vide his order dated 18th September 1963. Although the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, but Karnail Singh has moved this Court in revision against the above order of acquittal.
2. The story for the prosecution briefly runs as under: The first information report was lodged by Lai Singh in which it was stated that on 3rd March, 1963, at about 10-30 a. m. Jagir Singh deceased had gone to his field for bringing fodder for his cow when Gurdev Singh armed with a kirpan, Nikki Mundi with a barchha, Bur Singh with a gandasi and Chanan Singh carrying a dang fell upon Jagir Singh and caused a number of injuries to him. It was also alleged that the respondents thereafter cut the bead of Jagir Singh from its body and also severed his two hands which were later on disposed of. The occurrence was witnessed by Lai Singh, Gurdial Singh and Karnail Singh P. Ws. Besides, it was stated by Arjan Singh P. W. 7 that he had seen the seven respondents cutting the hands and head of Jagir Singh. In due course, the respondents were arrested and bloodstained clothes were removed from their persons. It was also alleged that at the instance of some of the respondents, human bones were recovered. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of the eyewitnesses. He also did not believe the recoveries of the blood-stained clothes nor the recovery of the bones as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge also held that although the first information report was alleged to have been recorded at 11-30 a. m. but it was not a fact and that the first report was recorded some time later after a good deal of deliberation.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not raise any legal point in support of this petition. It was a question of appraisal of evidence of the wit-nesses. The learned Judge has, it appears, gone to some extent out of his way in giving his findings, but he has also advanced reasons in disbelieving the witnesses. Some of those reasons may be ill-founded, but not all. The Supreme Court has laid down in Chinniswarny v State of Andhra Pradesh : 3SCR412 , that although the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, although the State has not moved against that order in appeal, but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law which resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice, The Supreme Court further held that Sub-section (4) of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction and that it makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitation on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. As stated above no legal point has been raised before me nor any clinching argument has been advanced on the basis of which I should interfere in the order of acquittal.
4. For the foregoing reasons I dismiss this revision petition.