- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the State, in these revisions against acquittal.
(2.) By the order, dated 28th February, 2011, an appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal in the same matter being Acquittal Appeal No. 7 of 2011, was dismissed with the following order:- "Delay condoned, We have heard the appeal on merits. Prosecution came to the Court with the allegation that the deceased was injured, and in an injured condition he was taken to Leslyganj Hospital on a motor cycle where he was given first aid and then referred to Daltongunj for further treatment. This means that the deceased was very much alive and in that situation he is likely to have told the doctor treating him as well as the persons accompanying him, about the assailants. But no such evidence has been brought on record from the side of the prosecution. Further the prosecution came to the Court with the allegation that there were several injured witnesses but neither their injury reports have been brought on record nor the doctor have been produced to prove the injury reports. Thus, there is no corroboration of the injuries. If some evidence could have been given but has been held back by the prosecution, and the trial Court has acquitted the accused, in our opinion there can be no interference in the order of acquittal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed"
(3.) Considering the fact that neither the post-mortem report nor the injury reports of the witnesses allegedly injured have been brought on record, and also considering the reasons given above and also taking into account the fact that in cases where two views are possible, the appellate or revisional Court does not interfere with judgments of acquittal. We decline to interfere with the revision. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.;