K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition has been filed by a private party against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 1989 against which admittedly no appeal or revision has been filed by the State (non-applicantopposite party No. 1 ). ( 2 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there has been a mis-reading of evidence and also faulty investigation, that though the other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, and that the case deserves to be remanded to the trial court. ( 3 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants. ( 4 ) IN this case, admittedly the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution and have been declared hostile P. W. 8 is noneclse but the tenant of the complainant P. W. 1. Even, the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 1 has been taken to be doubtful. The shirt, napk in and the earth containing blood stains have not been seized by the prosecution. The prosecution has also not seixed the weapon of offence, According to the prosecution case, the injuries are said to have been caused by by Bhujali, but the said bhujali has also not been seized. After appreciating the evidence, trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has thus acquitted the c accused persons. Trial court has also relied on the fact that admittedly there had been an enmity between the parties relating to the eviction from the house for which a litigation was pending between them. Learned counsel for the applicant has tend the statement of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also the doctor p. W. 7. The doctor has mentioned the nature of the weapon used as only sharp He has not described the exact nature of the particular weapon used. It appears even the injured persons have not disclosed the same to the doctor Similarly, even according to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries can be caused by coming in contact with sharp glass pieces and tin sheets. . It appears even the injured persons have not disclosed the same to the doctor Similarly, even according to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries can be caused by coming in contact with sharp glass pieces and tin sheets. . From the nature of the injuries, it cannot be described as to what actually the weapon used was. The injuries described by the doctor P. W. 7 are simple in nature. Moreover, the F. I. R Ext. 1 which is said to have been written on the spot itself at the instance of P. W. 1, has been denied to be so written at the spot by P. W. 1 himself. He says that for the first time that Ext. 1 was written in the police station. Even he denied the presence of the scribe of Ext. 1 on the spot. This makes the prosecution case doubtful supported by the fact that none of the independent witnesses has supported P. Ws. 1 and 2 the injuries caused on P. W. 2 were also of caused in the present on P. W. 2 were also not caused in the presence of P. W. 1 who came to the spot later. Injuries on P. W. 2 are also of simple nature, so also on P. W. 1. Admittedly, there is an enmity between the parties and this fact cannot be forgotten while assessing the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, I find that the inferences and conclusion drawn by the trial court cannot be said to be either perverse or causing miscarriage of justice. Even if a different opinion is taken, it is not a fit case to be remanded to the trial court. In view of this, no interference in the findings arrived at by the trial court is called for. The Criminal Revision is, accordingly, dismissed, Criminal Revision dismissed. .