JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts giving rise to this Revision Petition are that on 8.7.1994 at about 10 A.M. report (Ex. 1) was lodged at Police Station, Gurha to the effect that P.W. 1 Rajendra accompanied by his father and his uncle Ramdeva (P.W. 7) and grand father Surjaram were proceeding towards their village Brahmino Ke Dhani (Bishanpura) after taking their ploughs, for ploughing their fields situated in the boundary of Titanwar known as Shyamiwali Kothi. After reaching there at about 8 A.M. Rajendra (P.W. 1) found that his uncle Chunnilal alongwith Ramniwas, Nemichand, Birbal (all accused) and his aunt Harkari, Bimla & one Jagdish all came together in forming an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention to assault members of the complainant party. Birbal accused inflicted Barchhi blow on his father Banshidhar's leg while Nemichand accused inflicted lathi blow on the head of Banshidhar, Chunnilal accused caused 'gandasa' blow on the leg of his uncle Ramdeva (PW. 7) resulting in amputation of his legs. Ramniwas (accused) 15 and Bimla inflicted blows on the legs, rear bone and hands of his grand father Surjaram (PW. 5), his legs were fractured. His aunt Harkari inflicted Gandasi blow on his head resulting in severe injury. Jagdish was having lathi in his hand and which he inflicted on his head and then he was shouting that he would finish them then & there and would face whatever the consequences. Thereupon his father, grand father, and uncle Ramdev having been seriously injured, fell down at the spot, while accused made good their escape. 2. On the aforesaid report, F.I.R. (Ex.P. 2) was registered at Police Station Gurha and the investigation commenced and after usual investigation, challan was filed in the trial court and the injured were medically examined and X-rayed also. As per injury report (Ex.P. 12) of Ramdev (P.W. 7) out of four injuries, injury No. 3 was found to be grievous. As per injury report (Ex.P. 13) of Urjaram (P.W. 5), out of three injuries, injury No. 3 was grievous, and upon X-ray, as per X-ray report (Ex.P. 15), fracture of bone at Tibia & Fibula of left leg was found to be grievous. Similarly, as per injury report (Ex.P 16) of Banshidhar (PW. 6), out of six injuries, injury Nos. As per injury report (Ex.P. 13) of Urjaram (P.W. 5), out of three injuries, injury No. 3 was grievous, and upon X-ray, as per X-ray report (Ex.P. 15), fracture of bone at Tibia & Fibula of left leg was found to be grievous. Similarly, as per injury report (Ex.P 16) of Banshidhar (PW. 6), out of six injuries, injury Nos. 1, 4 & 5 were grievous and upon X-ray examination as per X-ray reports (Ex.P. 17 to P 19), Banshidhar (PW. 6) had fractures at Fibula bone on left & right legs, and thus injury Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were grievous. After usual investigation during which the accused respondents were arrested. challan was filed. The accused were charged for offence under Section 307/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses namely P.W, 1 Rajendra. P.W. 5 Surjaram, PW. 6 Banshidhar, P.W. 7 Ramdev, P.W. 8 Dr. Bhagwandas, P.W. 9 Dr. Satish Chand Vyas, PW. 10 Madanlal and P.W. 11 Jasbir Singh were examined. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr P.C. They did not examine any witness in defence. 3. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, did not find the accused guilty for offence under Section 307/34 IPC, and instead, it convicted the accused as under (i) Nemichand under Section 323 IPC; (ii) Ramniwas under Section 325 IPC; (iii) Chunnilal under Section 324 IPC; and (iv) Birbal under Section 326 IPC However, except accused Birbal, who was sentenced to a term till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default thereof, to undergo six months' imprisonment, the learned trial court, instead of passing sentence against accused namely Nemichand, Ramniwas & Chunnilal, granted benefit of probation as follows (i) Nemichand was released on probation under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act directing also to pay Rs. 300/- as compensation to injured P.W. 6 Bansidhar. (ii) Each of accused Ramniwas & Chunnilal was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act directing also Ramniwas to pay Rs. 1200/- as compensation to injured P.W. 5 Surjaram and Chunnilal to pay Rs. 700/- as compensation to P.W. 7 Ramdev. It was also directed that upon realisation of fine to the tune of Rs. (ii) Each of accused Ramniwas & Chunnilal was released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act directing also Ramniwas to pay Rs. 1200/- as compensation to injured P.W. 5 Surjaram and Chunnilal to pay Rs. 700/- as compensation to P.W. 7 Ramdev. It was also directed that upon realisation of fine to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- from accused Birbal, the same be paid as compensation to injured P.W. 6 Banshidhar. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered rival contentions. I have also perused the record and examined legal position. Prima-facie I am of the considered opinion that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. is very limited. As a matter of fact, it is the duty of the prosecution to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal and if the benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused in view of the evidence on record and if the prosecution evidence is trustworthy and inspires confidence then it is the judicial discretion of the Court either to convict or give benefit of doubt to the accused as against substantive offence, with which they have been charged. 5. As regards judicial powers of the revision and scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, the guiding principles have been laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in Ram Gopal v. State of Bombay, ( AIR 1958 SC 97 ) , wherein it has been observed that if on examining the records, the High Court finds any illegality or irregularity or error on the face of the impugned order, then this Court is competent to interfere with the findings of the trial court in exercise of its revisional powers and not otherwise. 6. In my considered opinion, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is subject to the following limitations (i) The powers of revision should not be exercised very lightly to interfere with the order of acquittal. (ii) Where an appeal lies, and no appeal has been preferred. no revision is maintainable at the instance of the party, who could have otherwise appealed against the said order which is not the case here as the State has not filed any appeal. (iii) Generally speaking. findings of the acquittal should not be lightly interfered with or disturbed. (ii) Where an appeal lies, and no appeal has been preferred. no revision is maintainable at the instance of the party, who could have otherwise appealed against the said order which is not the case here as the State has not filed any appeal. (iii) Generally speaking. findings of the acquittal should not be lightly interfered with or disturbed. (iv) Where a serious misdirection results in an acquittal and failure of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to interfere simply because the order has been challenged by a private party. (v) The High Court should not ordinarily interfere within exercise of its revisional jurisdiction with the order of acquittal at the instance of a private party merely because the said order is wrong or otherwise renders irregularity. 7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, I am of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is not the case, where the accused should have been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC. Since under Section 307 IPC, what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder, and without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". It is further to be noted that under section 307 IPC, the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all surrounding circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow on the vital part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. Where a fighting arising out of sudden quarrel is accidental, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is not called for and acquittal of the accused under Section 307 IPC would therefore be proper. I find support from the decision of the Apex Court in Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, ( AIR 1988 SC 2127 ) . 8. Where a fighting arising out of sudden quarrel is accidental, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is not called for and acquittal of the accused under Section 307 IPC would therefore be proper. I find support from the decision of the Apex Court in Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, ( AIR 1988 SC 2127 ) . 8. Having carefully perused the injury reports of the injured and other corroborative evidence, I am of the considered opinion that keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained on their persons, namely Surjaram (PW. 5), Banshidhar (PW. 6) and Ramdev (PW. 7) so also the parts of the body of the injured where the blows were inflicted by the accused Chunnilal, Birbal and Nemichand who also sustained injuries in the process, both the complainant and the accused are related to each other, the nature of the weapons used by the accused, I do not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in holding the accused not guilty of offence under Section 307/34 IPC, and instead holding them guilty of offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 & 326 IPC. Thus viewed in the light of the above, I do not find any error apparent in the impugned judgment and order dated 3.6.96 of learned Sessions Nudge, Jhunjhunu which calls for any interference by this court. 9. In the result, this criminal revision petition being not sustainable on merits is dismissed. The impugned judgment/order dated 3.6.1996 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 109/94 is upheld.Revision Dismissed. *******