- (1.) Case called out in the revised list. No one appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. From the order-sheet of the case, it is apparent that this revision came up as a fresh matter on 21.1.2009 before this Court and on the said date it was ordered to be listed after one month. Thereafter it has come up today for admission after a lapse of three and half years but no one is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision in the revised list. Hence, this Court has no other option but to proceed to hear the matter for admission as it cannot be allowed to linger on for an indefinite period.
(2.) Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned herein. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge in Session Trial No. 99 of 2006, State v. Jai Singh and others, under Sections 302/ 34 and 307/ 34 I.P.C., police station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges under Sections 302/ 34 and 307/ 34 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was done to death by the accused persons by crushing him under the tractor. The evidence of doctor, who deposed in his cross-examination that if some body is crushed or pressed by a tractor or any other vehicle said injuries are not possible to have been sustained. He further clarified that injuries were possible when somebody was hit by force by a tractor. The F.I.R. was lodged after three days for which no explanation was given by the prosecution. It further transpired from the judgment of the trial Court that the wife of the deceased has filed a motor accident claim petition No. 113 of 2006 in the Court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. In the said claim petition, it has been mentioned that the deceased died in an accident. There was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. The evidence of brother of the deceased, namely, P.W.I. Amit Kumar does not inspire any confidence as he made self contradictory statement before the trial Court in his evidence and P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 Ramesh and Prabhu Singh had not supported the prosecution story and were declared hostile. Having considered the facts and totality of circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the view taken by the trial Court was a probable view. No interference is called for by this Court in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.;