- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. M. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist at length and Mr. A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE argument of Mr. Shukla is that in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Illrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 61/1988, dated 4-10-94, injuries of the two injured persons who are witnesses for the prosecu tion in this case have not been properly considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Further Mr. Shukla argues that a counter case is also there in which the revisionist has been convicted and the ap peal is pending against the judgment of conviction. On this ground he also wants parity and prays that when his clients have been convicted the opposite party in this revision petition should not get acquittal. After going througn the impugned judgment and order this Court does not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Shukla. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed the injuries on Shiv Murat and Nardeshwar and has discussed the en tire evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution and defence at length. The injuries of both the injured persons of the prosecution side in this case have been well considered. There is nothing to justify any adverse comment by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order. The benefit of doubt given by the Court below against the allegation levelled in this case are not at all perverse to justify any inter ference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition does not dis close merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;