P. G. AGARWAL, J.— Head Mr. B. Kar Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.96 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 27/95 acquitting the accused persons from charges u/s 302/34 and 324/34 IPC. 3. The matter relates to an incident that took place on 10.9.93 at about 1.30 pm at Nagacherra. The case in hand had a chequered history. The trial was earlier completed whereupon the matter came up to this court and this court directed de novo trial whereupon fresh evidence was recorded and the impugned judgment was passed. 4. The dispute is in respect of a plot of land between the complainant side and the accused persons and as per the prosecution on the date of occurrence at about 1.30 pm the accused persons being armed with lathies, ballams etc. assaulted Binode Sutradhar and Bijit causing their deaths. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the trial court has recorded an order of acquittal on the following counts: 1. That the land in question was in possession of the accused persons and the complainant side was aggressor. 2. The medical evidence on record does not corroborate the oral testimony of the witnesses as regards the nature of weapon used and the injuries. 3. The accused persons had sustained serious injuries on their persons. The prosecution has failed to explain as to how the injuries were sustained by them. 4. The accused persons had acted in exercise of right of private defence and as such they are not liable for conviction. 6. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused persons had assaulted the two deceased persons with dao, lathi etc. causing various injuries. PW-5 Dr. Ashit Mohan Shorn held the autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries :- “I found the following injuries in person of Bijit Kumar Sutradhar who succumbed to those injuries: Injury No. 1 : Sharp penetrating injury over left midneck. Lateromedially cutting starno- lavicolu mastroid muscle (left side) and left common carotid artery - 4 cm 1/2cm x 6cm. Enjury No. 2 : Two lacerated wound over left thigh 2 cm x 1/2Acm x 1/2 cm caused by blunt object, fresh and simple in nature. Lateromedially cutting starno- lavicolu mastroid muscle (left side) and left common carotid artery - 4 cm 1/2cm x 6cm. Enjury No. 2 : Two lacerated wound over left thigh 2 cm x 1/2Acm x 1/2 cm caused by blunt object, fresh and simple in nature. The injury No. 1 was caused by sharp penetrating weapon and grievous. Binode Sutradhar: Injury No. 1 : Sharp penetrating injury over left mid-shoulder posterior anterey 4 1/2cm x 1/2cm x 10cm. Injury was fresh and caused by sharp pointed weapon and grievous in nature. Injury No. 2 :- One abration over left lower lateral end of the forehead. Injury was fresh and simple and caused by blunt object. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by sharp pointed weapon. Ext-4 is the post-mortem report and Ext-4 (1) is my signature.” 7. Thus, we find that both the deceased had sustained one penetrating injury each which ultimately proved fatal. Admittedly, the deceased persons had sustained cut injury although they were assaulted with dao by a number of accused persons. 8. As regards the possession of the land, we find that there was a proceeding u/s 145 Cr PC in respect of the said land at the time of the incident. The trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to a specific finding that the land was in possession of the accused persons and the complainant side were aggressors and on the relevant date, they tried to take forcible possession of the land and thereafter assaulted the accused persons which is supported by D W-1 who found sharp cutting injury on the person of the accused persons. Defence has not come up with an explanation as to how the accused persons sustained injury. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Takaji Hiraji Vs. Thakur reported in (2001) 6 SCC145 which was followed in the case of Kashiram Vs. Defence has not come up with an explanation as to how the accused persons sustained injury. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Takaji Hiraji Vs. Thakur reported in (2001) 6 SCC145 which was followed in the case of Kashiram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 1 SCC 71 , the prosecution is not bound to explain each and every injury on the accused and in case of minor injury, the prosecution shall not fail on that score but in case of serious injury the entire genesis of the incident becomes doubtful and in the present case, we find that the entire case is as regards the possession of the land in question and the trial court has held that the land was in possession of the accused persons and they have acted in exercise of right of private defence. In such scenario, non explanation of the injury of the accused persons casts grave doubt on the prosecution version of the occurrence. We find sufficient reasons behind it supporting the defence version that on being assaulted they reacted in order to save their persons. 9. In this revision petition, it is submitted that the trial court has failed to properly consider the evidence of PWs-3 and 4. PW-3 is Digendra Malakar who claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence but in the statement u/s 161 Cr. PC he has stated otherwise and he has stated that he never claims to be an eye witness. He has stated that he arrived at the P.O. subsequently and found the dead bodies lying on the ground and contradictions have been brought out by the defence as required under the law. So far PW-4 Kabindra alias Pabindra Deb is concerned, he has made an obvious development in his statement. Moreover, PW-4 is not independent witness. He is close relation of the complainant as his daughter has been married to PW Bidhan. In view of the obvious development in their testimony, the trial court rightly rejected their evidence. 10. The Apex Court in the case of AT. C. Reddy Vs. Moreover, PW-4 is not independent witness. He is close relation of the complainant as his daughter has been married to PW Bidhan. In view of the obvious development in their testimony, the trial court rightly rejected their evidence. 10. The Apex Court in the case of AT. C. Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pmdesh reported in AIR 1962 SC1788 had indicated certain categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision- “(i) Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; (ii) Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; (iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; (iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only either by the trial court or by the appellate court; and (v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding o f t he offence which is valid under the law. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” 11. In the present case, we find that the learned Sessions Judge had considered the entire evidence on record and recorded specific finding on each matter which shows full application of mind. The court below also recorded the reasons for not relying on the prosecution evidence. 12. In view of the above, we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the findings of fact are based on evidence on record. In the result, we find no merit in this revision petition and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.