P.K.Jain - (1.) LIST has been revised. Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist states that he has no instructions. None appears for the revisionist to argue this revision. Heard learned A.G.A. for State and perused material on record.
(2.) AT the outset, it may be stated that the learned Magistrate in the operative portion of his judgment wrongly stated Section 307, I.P.C. instead of Section 326, I.P.C. It appears from record that charge-sheet was submitted under Section 307, I.P.C. along with other sections. Case was committed to the Court of Session but the Sessions Judge sent the case back holding that no offence under Section 307, I.P.C. was made out. Trial court, therefore, framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 326, I.P.C. and the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were tried for the said charges and shall be deemed to have been acquitted for the said offences. The present revision is against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court and is challenged on the ground that there was sufficient evidence on record and the court below has wrongly disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. It transpires from record that prosecution examined five witnesses of fact, out of whom three turned hostile and did not support prosecution. Only the first informant who was also injured and another injured witness supported the case of the prosecution. The trial court, however, found material inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses and also pointed out inconsistency between medical evidence and eye-witness account. On perusal of the findings arrived at by the trial court, I find that there is no perversity in these findings. In a revision against acquittal, the revisional powers are exercised in rare of the rarest cases. Having found no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court, I do not find any merit in this revision. It is hereby dismissed.;