N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) This revision has been directed against the judgement and order dated 3.4.1995 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 320 of 1989 acquitting the opposite parties of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The charge against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 was that on 12.4.86 at about 3.00 P.M. in furtherance of their common intention they committed the murder of Rajendra Singh near the grove in village Hisampur, P.S. Chandwak, Jaunpur. Three witnesses of fact have been examined in the case. PW-3 Shivnath is the chaukidar of the village, who had lodged the F.I.R. He turned hostile. He have out that his thumb impression was taken over a blank paper. He denied that he lodged the F.I.R. of the incident or that he was present at the time the3 alleged incident took place. He was declared hostile. His testimony does not help the prosecution in any way. PW.1 Smt. Draupati is the wife of the deceased. PW.2 Usha Devi is the daughter of the deceased. The names of those two witnesses were not stated in the F.I.R. No reason was also forth coming on behalf of the prosecution to indicate that if they were present then why their names did not find place in the F.I.R. The presence of these two witnesses at the scene of occurrence was doubted by the trial court. The story developed during evidence was that the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 had come to the residence of the deceased in order to kill him, the deceased apprehending danger to his life ran from his house along with the gun towards the grove where he was chased by the assailants and killed. The trial court has rightly stated that in the ordinary course he should have closed the doors of his house and fired from the gun in order to save himself from the assailants. Even though he was inflicted a number of injuries he is not alleged to have fired from the gun. The prosecution story, according to the trial court was improbable and did not inspire confidence. No independent witnesses has come to depose about the incident although a number of persons are alleged to have been gathered there. No reasons is also forthcoming as to why the other witnesses were not examined. The scope of revision against the judgement of acquittal is very limited. Even if two views are possible the view taken by the trial court is to prevail, which had the added advantage of looking to the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court has discussed the evidence in some detail. It cannot be said that the judgement suffers from any perversity or illegality. According to the medical evidence nothing was found inside the two intestines of the deceased. PW.1 Smt. Draupadi his wife gave out that he had taken some eatables before the incident as some guests had come to the house. Had it been so then something should have been found in the intestines. The trial court was of the opinion that the medical evidence would not indicate that the incident took place at 3.00 P.M. It has also pointed out the discrepancy in the medical evidence about the probable time of death and the oral evidence. In view of the above no case for interference has been made out. The revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision Dismissed.;