VIRENDER SINGH, J. - (1.)JAGDISH Singh respondent No. 1 had earned acquittal vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 16.11.1998 in a case FIR No. 63 dated 9.12.1994, registered at Police Station Lalru under Section 302 IPC. He was also charged for the same offence. The record reveals that the State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal as is clear from the certificate issued by the office of Advocate General, Punjab.
(2.)SINCE no one has come present on behalf of either petitioner or respondent No. 1, I am disposing of the instant revision petition with the assistance of the learned State counsel. I have also gone through the grounds of appeal and the impugned judgment very minutely.
Sita Devi is the deceased in this case. She is the wife of Mam Raj. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner has given a danda blow on the head of Sita Devi. As per the allegations, he had come to the house of Sita Devi with an intention to rape her. The occurrence was seen by Mam Raj husband of Sita Devi and one Harmesh. The matter was reported to the police by Mam Raj, the husband of the deceased.

(3.)AS per the medical evidence Sita Devi had received as many as six injuries. Injury No. 5 rather indicates that there are multiple abrasion on her right fore arm. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in this case. The main witnesses are Mam Raj PW7 husband of the deceased, Harmesh PW8, the other so called witness to the occurrence. The stand of the respondent was of false implication. He took a plea that he was taken from his house on December 9, 1994 and subsequently his formal arrest was shown.