Judgment 1. This revision application has been filed against judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.1994, passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1988, whereby opposite parties 2 to 4 were not found guilty of charges under Sections 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to prosecution case, on 24.6.1986 at 6 A.M. petitioner, P.W. 4 with his brother Ghaltu Mahto, P.W. 3, went to their Bari land, and found opposite parties 2 and 3 digging Nali just by the side of wall of their house and protested. On this, opposite party no. 2 rushed into his house and returned back with Bhala and Sword in his hands and made over Sword to opposite party no. 3. Opposite party no. 4 also came out of the house with Lathi in his hand. Both of them were chased and petitioners brother Ghaltu Mahto was surrounded and assaulted near the house of Ganesh Mahto by opposite party no. 4 by Lathi on his leg and he fell down, opposite party no. 2 then assaulted him with Bhala on his wrist and again assaulted with the said Bhala at his right eye. The petitioner watched the occurrence from inside his house as he did not dare to come out. 3. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined. P.W. 7 was a formal witness. Informant examined himself as P.W. 4 and his brother who was said to have injured in the occurrence was examined as P.W. 3. P.W. 5 was tendered for crossexamination. P.W. 6 was Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 1 and 2 claimed to be eye witness. P.W. 1 was not examined by the Investigating Officer and he was not a chargesheet witness. Hence, the trial court rejected his evidence. P.W. 2 admitted in his cross-examination that he was an accused in Case No. 182 of 1985. In connection with the said case he was present in the Court of Magistrate of Chas on 24.6.1986. It is relevant to mention that it was morning court. This witness stated that opposite party no. 3 had assaulted P.W. 3 by his sword on his left hand, which was not the prosecution case. There was no injury alleged on the left hand of P.W. 4. Accordingly, his evidence was rejected. It is relevant to mention that it was morning court. This witness stated that opposite party no. 3 had assaulted P.W. 3 by his sword on his left hand, which was not the prosecution case. There was no injury alleged on the left hand of P.W. 4. Accordingly, his evidence was rejected. P.W. 3 in his evidence stated about manner of occurrence and injury caused to him but it was not corroborated by any other witness and the doctor, who was said to have examined his injuries was also not examined as witness. P.W. 4 is informant. In paragraph 5 of his deposition he stated that petitioner no. 2 assaulted his brother P.W. 3 by Bhala firstly on his waist and then on his right hand. He did not support his case in First Information Report (Ext. 1) that opposite party no. 2 had assaulted second time by Bhala on the right eye of P.W. 3. The Investigation Officer, P.W. 6 in his deposition did not state about any Nali on the spot, which was alleged to have been dug by the opposite parties 1 and 2. 4. It is well settled that this Court in revision against acquittal is not required to reweigh the evidence as if it was appeal against acquittal. l do not find any glaring defect of procedure or that the trial court had shut out the material evidence, which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence, which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. 5. I do not find any manifest error on the point of law and consequently there has not been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 6. l, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order of acquittal in this Revision application at the instance of informant. It is, accordingly, dismissed.