ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 9.4.1991 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 101/90, whereby the respondents No.1 and 2 have been acquitted from the charges under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The admitted facts in the case are that appellant Shrinath Mishra who is now deceased as reported in Criminal Appeal No. 417/91 was the son of Trilokinath. Respondent No.2 is also the son of respondent No.1 Trilokinath. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, applicant No.2 is son of Shrinath Mishra. They were residing in different portion of the old house of Trilokinath situated at village Ruhiya. The appellants also constructed a house on government land bearing khasra No. 442 before 8-9 yeas back. They were constructing 'pagra' near this house which was objected by the respondents. On this count, they quarreled with each other and caused marpeet. Both the parties lodged the report at Police Station Churhata. The case and counter case were registered against them. Sessions Trial No. 63/89 was initiated against the applicants and Sessions Trial No. 101/90 was initiated against the respondents. Both cases have been disposed of by the trial Court on 9.4.1991 whereby the applicants were found guilty under section 307, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder whereas the respondents were acquitted from the charges under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 19.2.1988 at 9:00 a.m. Sanjay Kumar Mishra was constructing the 'pagra' on government land to which respondents obstructed. The altercation took place. The respondents caused marpeet to the applicants and consequently they received the injuries. The information was given to Police Station Chorahata which was taken down as Rojnamcha sanha No. 704 (Ex. P-6). The injured persons were referred for medical examination. Dr. Y.S. Tiwari (PW 5) conducted the medical examination and found the injuries on their persons. Medical reports were submitted. Dr. D.S. Kapur (PW 7) found the fracture in scapula bone of applicant Sanjay Kumar Mishra and gave the report Ex. P-8. Sanjay Kumar Mishra was also got admitted in the hospital on the basis of medical and xray report. The crime was registered on 23.6.1988 under sections 325 and 323 of IPC at Police Station Churahata vide Ex. P-7. Dr. D.S. Kapur (PW 7) found the fracture in scapula bone of applicant Sanjay Kumar Mishra and gave the report Ex. P-8. Sanjay Kumar Mishra was also got admitted in the hospital on the basis of medical and xray report. The crime was registered on 23.6.1988 under sections 325 and 323 of IPC at Police Station Churahata vide Ex. P-7. The spot map was prepared. After completing the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court of CIM, Rewa wherein the criminal case and counter case was triable by the Sessions Court and the same was also committed. 4. The respondents were charged under section 325 read with section 34 alleging that on 19.2.1988 at 9:00 a.m. at village Ruhiya they voluntarily caused the grievous hurt to Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Shrinath Mishra. 5. The respondents abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Their main defence was that Sanjay Kumar Mishra was abusing them and on asking not to abuse he int1icted Farsa blow on the head of Ramesh Prasad Sharma and also caused injuries to his father Trilokinath. The report was lodged and they were also medically examined. The right parietal bone of Ramesh Prasad Sharma was fractured. He remain hospitalized for 10 days. They denied to cause marpeet of the applicants. 6. After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court found that the applicants were aggressor and the injuries to them were caused in self defence by the respondents, therefore, giving the benefit of doubt acquitted them. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the applicants have preferred this revision under section 397 read with section 40 I of CrPC on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the finding of the trial court that the applicants were aggressor is not based on the evidence adduced in the case. Moreover, the trial Court ought to have accepted that the respondents were themselves aggressor and caused the grievous hurt to the applicants. In such situation, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is erroneous. The learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the case be remanded back to the trial Court for further inquiry and to dispose of it according to law. 8. None appeared on behalf of the respondents No. I and 2 though served. 9. Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy. The learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the case be remanded back to the trial Court for further inquiry and to dispose of it according to law. 8. None appeared on behalf of the respondents No. I and 2 though served. 9. Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy. A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has supported the judgment and finding of the trial Court and submitted not to interfere in this revision. 10. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality or impropriety in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them. 11. I have perused the entire case and evidence adduced therein. 12. Sanjay Kumar Mishra (PW 2) has deposed that on 19.2.1988 at 9:00 a.m. when his father Shrinath Mishra came out of the house for going to Amarpatan to attend a case at the same time Ramesh Prasad Sharma abused him and when his father said that after returning from Amarpatan he will go to the police station. The respondents started causing marpeet by Lathi he was attacked and caused marpeet by Lathi. He and his father sustained the injuries. Shrinath Mishra (PW 3) has also deposed in the same manner and stated that Sobhnath and Lakhpati saved him. These persons have not been examined by the prosecution. The name of eye witnesses have not been mentioned in the report. Prosecution examined Ramlal (PW 1) and Ishwardeen (PW 4) as eyewitnesses but they have not conoborated the prosecution story and consequently declared hostile. Thus, no independent witness has supported the prosecution story. The statement of father and son are against the respondents but in their statements also there are several contradictions and omissions on the material facts. Such contradictions and omissions have been brought in para No.7 of deposition of Sanjay Kumar Mishra and paras No.4 to 6 of Shrinath Mishra (PW 3). No doubt Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Shrinath Mishra sustained the injuries in the incident Dr. Y.S. Tiwari (PW 5) who conducted the medical examination Sanjay Kumar Mishra found seven injuries as mentioned in Ex. P-5 on his person. Out of which injury No. 1 incised wound was found on the skull left side of parietal region. He was admitted in the hospital and also referred for xray examination. Dr. Y.S. Tiwari (PW 5) who conducted the medical examination Sanjay Kumar Mishra found seven injuries as mentioned in Ex. P-5 on his person. Out of which injury No. 1 incised wound was found on the skull left side of parietal region. He was admitted in the hospital and also referred for xray examination. Dr. D.S. Kapur (PW 7) found fracture of scapula bone vide x-ray report (Ex. P-8) has been submitted in this behalf. Thus, it can, be said that Sanjay Kumar Mishra sustained the grievous injury. 13. Dr. Y.S. Tiwari (PW 5) also conducted the medical examination on the person of Shrinath Mishra and found four injuries as mentioned in Ex. P-4. He advised for xray examination of injury No.1 but was examined to prove the fracture in the left hand of Shrinath Mishra. However, it is apparent that he sustained the simple injury. 14. The trial Court after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the applicants were aggressor and the injuries to them were caused in the self defence of the respondents, such finding appears to be based on evidence. No perversity it is found in such finding, therefore, it cannot be interfered in revision. 15. Since finding of acquittal is proper and the trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the respondents. Keeping in view the limited scope of revision filed by the applicants, such finding does not call for interference. The revision is meritless hence deserves to be dismissed. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the case be remanded back to the trial Court for inquiry, is not acceptable because the incident is of 1988 and there is no infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the order of acquittal passed by trial Court hence does not call for interference. 17. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.