Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. What is being impugned in this revision at the instance of the informant, a private party, is finding of acquittal recorded by Shri R.N. Verma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 1995. Factual matrix--Dhora Bhagat had been to the house of Sheo Bachan Sah for seeds and as said Sheo Bachan Sah was otherwise busy, he asked him to come afterwards. Allegedly, shortly after Dhora Bhagat proceeded, the accused persons, who were 13 in numbers came and encircled Dhora Bhagat. Then on exhortation made by Suraj Bhagat and Jagarnath Bhagat, Nand Kishore Bhagat and Ganga Bishun Bhagat assaulted Dhora Bhagat with hard blunt object. Alarms were raised by Dhora Bhagat, pursuant to which deceased Laxman Bhagat came from his house and on exhortation made by said Suraj Bhagat and Jagarnath Bhagat, Gaya Bhagat dealt a farsa blow on his head, which was followed by assault with hard and blunt object by Nand Kishore Bhagat, Shambhu Bhagat, Ganga Bishun Bhagat and Ram Surat Bhagat. Laxman Bhagat thereafter dropped injured and eventually succumbed to the injuries. The ball was set in motion by Dhora Bhagat, who instituted a police case with accusation of killing of Laxman Bhagat and also assaulting him. 2. At trial, the State examined ten witnesses including doctor, Police Officer and host of other witnesses. The trial Judge, however, on appreciation of evidences available on the record, it seems discredited the prosecution version, primarily on following premises : (a) The medical evidence runs counter to the ocular evidences about mode of assault with weapon on Laxman Bhagat; (b) The prosecution had not established even manner of occurrence beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt; and (c) The prosecution was also guilty of introducing distorted version about the place of occurrence. The learned Judge has held that the identity of the place of occurrence, as disclosed by ocular witnesses, was not in conformity with the physical features of the place described by the Investigating Officer as two places of occurrence were suggested where the incident in question took place. The space in front of house of Sheo Bachan Sah was suggested to be the first place of occurrence where Dhora Bhagat was assaulted. However, as for the place where Laxman Bhagat suffered injuries, space before the house of the informant was suggested to be the place. The space in front of house of Sheo Bachan Sah was suggested to be the first place of occurrence where Dhora Bhagat was assaulted. However, as for the place where Laxman Bhagat suffered injuries, space before the house of the informant was suggested to be the place. The Investigating Officer has found that the door of the house of Sheo Bachan Sah was at a distance of about 50 yards from the house of the informant and hence the Court below took the view that there had been variation in evidence of the witnesses about the place of occurrence. Barring Munnilal Bhagat alias Nanulal Bhagat (PW 1), witnesses in chorus voice had stated that Laxman Bhagat had suffered injuries by Gaya Bhagat by Sharp edged weapon. As for Munnilal Bhagat (PW 1), his evidence was that Laxman Bhagat was assaulted by Gaya Bhagat on back of his head by blunt part of garasa. The doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, had noticed only one stitched wound on vertex and in estimation of the doctor, injury had been caused by hard blunt substance. The doctor, however, was not emphatic as to whether injury was anti mortem. 3 Contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioner that nature of the injury found by the doctor on the dead body of Laxman was quite possible by blunt part of the sharp edged weapon and hence the finding of the doctor cannot be construed to have run counter to the ocular testimony of the witnesses. However, I am of the view that once the witnesses are stating about use of sharp edged weapon, as an instrument for assaulting a person, the inference drawn would be that the edged part of the weapon was used by the assailant and unless the witnesses say otherwise about use of the blunt part of the weapon by the assailant, no unwarranted inference can be drawn by the Court. 4. Primarily though two persons including Nand Kishore Shah were suggested to have dealt blows on the head of Laxman Bhagat, the doctor has noticed one injury and that too caused by hard and blunt substance. The Court below had noticed that injuries were found stitched by the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body. 4. Primarily though two persons including Nand Kishore Shah were suggested to have dealt blows on the head of Laxman Bhagat, the doctor has noticed one injury and that too caused by hard and blunt substance. The Court below had noticed that injuries were found stitched by the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body. The doctor, who had initially treated the injured, had not been examined at trial, and hence some good questions remained unanswered as for culpability of Nand Kishore Sah. Attention of Rudal Bhagat (PW 2) and Ashok Bhagat (PW 5) had been drawn by the defence for there being no such parallel statement made before the police during investigation and the trial Court accordingly took the view that they had tried to put embroidery in the prosecution case by developing prosecution story at trial. Though PW 4 had claimed to be an ocular witness to assault on his father, he had acknowledged in no uncertain terms that since the accused persons had encircled his father from all sides, he was not visible to him and if this be so, possibility of witnessing assault on Laxman Bhagat appears to be remote. Since Laxman Bhagat was shown to have sustained 10/12 assault on his head, the trial Court took the view that since the doctor has not recorded a finding about presence of such injuries on the deceased, the manner of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution had not been established at trial. Belated receipt of first information report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was also taken to be a ground to suspect the bonafide of the first information report, there being no adequate explanation which was the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. 5. However, some conclusions drawn by the trial Court were not borne out by the record though it could not affect the finding. Though Exhibit 6 shows that accused Ram Surat Bhagat alone had deposed against Munnilal (PW 1) and Rudal Bhagat (PW 2), the trial Court had drawn conclusion that PW 1 was inimical to the accused-persons. Similarly, referring to the evidence of geneology, furnished by Rudal Bhagat (PW 2), the trial Court took a view that this shows that all the accused persons were of the same branch. Similarly, referring to the evidence of geneology, furnished by Rudal Bhagat (PW 2), the trial Court took a view that this shows that all the accused persons were of the same branch. Needless to say that geneology furnished by PW 2 shows Gaya Bhagat, Jhoti Bhagat, Jagarnath Bhagat, Daya Shankar Bhagat, Pramod Bhagat, Shambhu Bhagat and Prayag Bhagat only to be of one branch, there being no evidence that Ganga Bishun Bhagat, Nathuni Bhagat, Suraj Bhagat, Nand Kishore Bhagat, Gaya Bhagat, Sir Bahadur Bhagat and Ram Surat Bhagat also were of the same branch. Similarly, referring to exhibits B and C, the trial Court had drawn conclusion that accused persons were hostile to each other since before the alleged occurrence. But from these two documents, no such conclusion can ever be drawn. Against prosecution version altogether a different version was sought to be pitted by the defence at trial and it was suggested to the witnesses that Vijay Chandra Bhagat son of Dhorhi Bhagat had entered the residential premises of Suraj Bhagat, one of the accused persons, probably for outraging the modesty of his daughter Ranjita, and since the matter was taken to Panchayati, a false case had been foisted against the accused persons, Though all the accused persons were not related to Suraj Bhagat, no common ground for animosity can be drawn against all but in view of infirmity that has crept in the prosecution case. I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be upset, particularly in view of the scope of revision against acquittal being extremely limited. Finding of acquittal is not reversible in absence of evidence about perversity and miscarriage of justice. Even no defect of procedure or law in the judgment of the trial Judge had been pointed out at Bar. There was not even scope for reweighing the evidence and appreciating it in another perspective and for this reliance can be placed on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in AIR 1968 SC 707 (Mahendra Pratap Singh V/s. Sarju Singh and Anr.). 6. There being no merit, this revision is accordingly dismissed.