Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25-8-2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 301/02 whereby non-applicant No. 2 Dinkar Prasad Pandey has been acquitted from the charge of Sections 294 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, then the complainant/injured has preferred this revision petition against the above said order of acquittal. ( 2. ) AS per the prosecution case, 14-2-2001 one charge- sheet was issued to non-applicant No. 2 by the Divisional Manager of the M. P. S. R. T. C. Ratahara. The above said notice was entered by complainant in the Pune-Book of the office. As alleged, due to this, non-applicant No. 2 went in the cabin of complainant and abused him with filthily languages and in continuation of it one chair was thrown over the face of applicant by non-applicant No. 2. Complainant got injured, he received injury just near his eye and there was some rescuing by the departmental persons then the matter was reported to Police, Rewa, who submitted the charge-sheet after holding the entire investigation. ( 3. ) AFTER framing the above said charges, the prosecution examined witnesses. Out of them Suryakant (P. W. 1) and Bhanwarlal (P. W. 2) were examined as injured and the eye-witnesses. But, as per Paras 6, 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, which speak about the whole position of the evidence and that has not been disputed by the applicant himself. If such inconsistent and contrary statements have come up on the record, then certainly the non-applicant No. 2 was properly acquitted by the Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence. ( 4. ) COMPLAINANT/applicant has come up in this revision with a prayer for reappreciation of the evidence, the same is not permissible under the law till major injustice has not been done by the Courts below during appreciation of the evidence. For the sake of arguments, if theory put-forth by applicant before this Court is considered then on the basis of the same evidence if two views are possible and one which was plausible has already been adopted by the Trial Court then another view can not be adopted by appreciating the evidence at the revisional stage. Besides, there is settled principle that if two views are possible then the view favourable to accused should be adopted. Besides, there is settled principle that if two views are possible then the view favourable to accused should be adopted. My aforesaid view is fully supported by the case Harchand Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1974 SC 344 . ( 5. ) BESIDES the above all these things, if a witness is said contrary things in his deposition at the same time and also in the same trial then such witness is not relied. [suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1408 ]. ( 6. ) THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid premises, I have not found any perversity or illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment which can be levelled the error of jurisdiction committed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court is concurred and the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.