JUDGMENT This revision is at the behest of the complainant Leela Kishan, who was one of the injured persons, against the order of acquittal of 8 accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 11/85 vide Judgment and order dated 31.1.92 passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge. Sehore. The background of the incident is the petty one. According to the prosecution, at about 4 p.m. on 12.8.84 in village Ratikheda, the accused Mohan Prasad and Thakur Prasad in the field of PW 14 Bhagwan Singh and PW 2 Ramdayal (complainant) got their cattle grazing and on being objected to by Bhagwan Singh (PW 14) for not getting their cattle grazing in the field the accused Thakur Prasad told him that the cattle will graze in the field and it led to taking the cattle to the cattle pound. At this, the accused Mohan Prasad rushed to his house whereupon the accused Laxminarayan, Thakur Prasad, Jagdishprasad, Munnalal, Dashrathprasad, Mohanprasad, Raghuveer Prasad, Ramprasad and Dwarkaprasad armed with tangiya, axe, pharsi, ballam, pharsi, pharsi, lathi, ballam and pharsi respectively, reached there and started abusing in filthy language. Ram Prasad asked for killing the complainant party. At this, the incident started. Two cases were registered. One on the basis of the report made by the complainant in the present case and the other, on the basis of the report lodged by the accused persons. Both the cases resulted in acquittal. Against the order of acquittal, the accused persons did not come to this Court by way of a revision but the complainant has come to this Court against the order of acquittal. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Ashok Tiwari, who is holding the brief of Shri Ajit Singh, and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 8, Shri Qamaruddin and learned State counsel Shri Riyaz Mohd. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned trial Court failed to arrive at a correct conclusion, and as such, the order of acquittal suffers from the infirmity. The trial Court came to the conclusion after considering all the material on the record and the evidence as led by the prosecution. The important question for consideration was that both sides received injuries. In the present case, six persons on the complainant's side received injuries, whereas in the counter case, 8 persons received injuries. The trial Court came to the conclusion after considering all the material on the record and the evidence as led by the prosecution. The important question for consideration was that both sides received injuries. In the present case, six persons on the complainant's side received injuries, whereas in the counter case, 8 persons received injuries. So far as the injuries of the accused persons, who are the respondents in the present case, are concerned, the same were not explained by the prosecution. The Court recorded the finding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and recorded their acquittal of the offence punishable under sections 148, 307 or in the alternative 307/149, 325 or in the alternative 325/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 24, Cruelty on Animals Act. On the side of the respondents, accused Jagdish Prasad, Dashrath, Ram Prasad, Munnalal, Mohan Prasad and Thakur Prasad were medically examined and their injury reports were also exhibited which were proved by the Doctor who medically examined the accused persons. The injuries on the person of the accused persons were not at all explained and as such the prosecution case was found doubtful by the trial Court. Apart from this, the Court also observed and mentioned in the judgment about the demeanour of the prosecution witnesses. The scope of revision at the behest of the complainant is very limited. It is not a case where it could be said that the Court failed to consider any relevant evidence or material led by the prosecution. It is not a case which could be said that the finding suffer from any perversity. It is a case purely of appreciation of evidence. There is no ground for interference. In view of the above, we find no merit in the revision. Revision is accordingly dismissed.