Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur (Sahebganj), in Sessions Trial No.290 of 1992/87 of 1989, whereby, the accused persons/opposite parties 1 to 12 have been acquitted of the charges. 2. Mr. Sharma appearing for the petitioner/informant submits that the court below has committed illegality while discarding the post-mortem report on the ground that it was not proved by the doctor. Submission is that from a bare reference to the judgment, it would appear that the post mortem report was already proved by PW 13, who was a compounder and had identified the signature of the doctor and has also stated that the doctor was dead at that time. He further contended that apart from the aforesaid illegality, even the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not considered properly and only on placing reliance on statements of certain witnesses, recorded in the case diary, he has disbelieved the prosecution case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that against the impugned judgment the State Government had filed Government Appeal No.29 of 1994, which was dismissed by a Division bench of this Court on 30-3-1995. It was further pointed out that from a bare reference to the judgment, it would appear that attempt was made by the prosecution to change the place of occurrence. It would further appear that even blood stain or the trampling marks were not found at the place, which was suggested by the prosecution as place of occurrence. 4. Mr. Sharma submitted that the government Appeal was not dismissed on merit rather it was dismissed on the ground of delay. Therefore, it would not be proper to argue that the revision application is not maintainable. 5. I having heard both the learned advocates appearing for the parties, personally perused the impugned judgment. There is no doubt that the Court concerned has committed illegality while taking a view that the post mortem report was not admissible. But in my view, that was not the solitory ground to grant acquittal to the opposite parties. Because from a bare reference of the judgment, it would appear that the place of occurrence has also been doubted. I am also conscious about the fact that in a revision against acquittal the informant has got a limited scope. But in my view, that was not the solitory ground to grant acquittal to the opposite parties. Because from a bare reference of the judgment, it would appear that the place of occurrence has also been doubted. I am also conscious about the fact that in a revision against acquittal the informant has got a limited scope. That apart, besides the point regarding non-acceptance of the evidenciary value of the post-mortem report, to my mind, no other ground has been made out on the basis of which the judgment of acquittal can be interfered with. In that view of the matter, the instant revision application is, thus, dismissed. Revision Dismissed.