Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401, CrPC is directed against the Judgment and order dated 21.07.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Banswara, (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 16/04 whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 25 of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 440, 436, 427, 450, 395, 109 and 114, IPC. Aggrieved of the order of acquittal, the complainant-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State, perused the Judgment and order impugned. 3. An FIR was lodged by the petitioner on 09.09.2002 inter alia alleging therein that about 150-200 persons came shouting to cause fire to the house of Mohammadens. They were said to be armed with Lathies, Dharias, Swords, Stones and Kerosene & Dissel tins. Certain persons were named amongst the mob of about 150-200 persons namely Gabru, Vinod, Bhuria, Vinod, Lalit, Rajesh, Gopichand, Kamla, Sarla, Veeru, Harish, Kachra, Mukesh, Kalia, Pankaj S/o Mathura, Pinta, Santu, Dinesh, Nilesh, Pawan, Manish, Pankaj S/o Ramesh, Manohar, Manishankar, Harish, Kayalal, Prakash and Panna. On this report, police investigated the matter and filed challan. The accused respondents denied the charges and sought trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondents and acquitted them. 4. PW. 1 Illiyas is the author of the first information report. PW. 2 Kilendra Singh stated that on 08.07.2002 he was Patwari of the area and at about 9.00 in night, he heard cries of women in the hospital. He went to the Hospital, and asked the Doctor, thereupon Doctor replied that Shanker Harijan and Rajesh are admitted in hospital. There were number of Harijan persons. He came know that a quarrel took place between Muslims and Harijans. Thus, he is not witness to the occurrence. PW. 3 Tajeg Patidar, PW. 4 Balbahadur Singh, PW. 5 Girvarsingh, PW. 6 Laxmansingh, PW. 7 Devisingh, PW. 9 Mangilal Dangi and PW. 12 Gopal Lal are the police officials. 5. PW. 4 Balbahadur Singh and PW. He came know that a quarrel took place between Muslims and Harijans. Thus, he is not witness to the occurrence. PW. 3 Tajeg Patidar, PW. 4 Balbahadur Singh, PW. 5 Girvarsingh, PW. 6 Laxmansingh, PW. 7 Devisingh, PW. 9 Mangilal Dangi and PW. 12 Gopal Lal are the police officials. 5. PW. 4 Balbahadur Singh and PW. 5 Girvarsingh stated that on 08.09.2002 at 8.45 in night, Kachra came to the police station and stated that there was a quarrel between 4-5 Harijan youth and 2 muslims. Thereupon, they alongwith Devisingh, Shambudayal and Laxamnsingh went to the spot and found Rajesh and Dinesh in the injured condition and admitted to the hospital. There were number of persons from Harijan community. PW. 4 Balbahadur Singh stated that he alongwith C.I. of the police reached on the spot and found a mob of 100-200 persons. In the mob Santosh Harijan, Ramavatarsingh and Chakradhari Singh were there and were stating that it was not a case of accident, but it was a case of murder. PW. 5 Girvarsingh stated that on 09.09.2002 in the morning, people from Hindu community and Harijan community were saying to kill the Muslims and they put a truck and mini truck to fire and a house was set to fire. However, he did not name any of the persons responsible for causing the fire. PW. 6 Laxamsingh also made a similar statement. PW. 7 Devi Singh stated that there was a quarrel between the persons of Harijan community and Muslims and there was a gathering of mob of 100-150 persons. PW. 9 Mangilal also made similar statement. PW. 10 and PW. 12 also made similar statement. From the statement of various witnesses produced by the prosecution it appears that there was a mob of 150-200 persons from the Harijan community as also some of the persons from muslim community and there was a quarrel between these two communities, whereupon two persons from Harijan community namely Rajesh and Dinesh were seriously injured and hospitalised. Ultimately, one of the injured Raju succumbed to the injuries. 6. The trial Court on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that case beyond reasonable doubt and obviously the occurrence alleged to have taken place where a mob of 150-200 persons gathered and quarrel took place between two communities. 6. The trial Court on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that case beyond reasonable doubt and obviously the occurrence alleged to have taken place where a mob of 150-200 persons gathered and quarrel took place between two communities. There is absolutely no evidence as to which of the accused caused fire or caused injuries to either of the parties. The case before the trial Court was a State case "State vs. Sushil & Ors." The State has not preferred leave to appeal or appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal, obviously there being no evidence connecting the accused respondents with the commission of the crime. However, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. The scope of revision by a complainant is very limited in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Harihar Chakravarthy vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266 and in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar(now Jharkhand) reported in AIR 2002 SCW 3315 . More so, on close scrutiny of the entire evidence, I do not find any error illegality in the order of trial Court warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is absolutely no evidence connecting the accused respondents with the commission of crime. The entire prosecution story is that there was a mob of 150-200 persons who caused injuries and fire who could not have been ascertained. 7. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.