- (1.) REGARDING maintainability of the present revision, Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner being one of the injured is an aggrieved person and even though he was a witness, he can pursue this revision petition, specially in view of the judgment reported in the case of K. Pandurangan etc. Vs. S.S.R. Velusamy and another {2003 Cr.L.J. 4964 (SC)}.
(2.) MR. R. K. Singh, learned appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 8, did not dispute this position. However, he submitted that in 1995 itself, an affidavit (Ext. A) was filed by the petitioner himself saying that five persons named therein have no complicity in this case and they are innocent. It was also informed that out of 7 private opposite parties, one was not sent up for trial and the other Sarafat Sk. has absconded and, therefore, his trial has been split up. Even if it is accepted that this revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is maintainable, it appears that the trial court has acquitted the accused persons on the ground, inter alia, that the informant and the I.O. were not examined and there were major contradictions in the version of the doctor and the injured person regarding the number of injuries, sustained by the injured. Moreover, Mr. Gaumtam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, could not dispute the fact that the petitioner had himself filed an affidavit (Ext. A) saying that five persons named therein have no complicity in this case and they are innocent.
(3.) IN the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this revision petition which is accordingly, dismissed. However, this order will not come in the way of the trial court so far the absconding accused is concerned.;