JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been preferred by the complainant Ram Kumar. Being aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court dated 13th December, 2007, by which the learned trial Court convicted the respondent No.2 accused Indraj under Section 304 Part-II, IPC instead of Section 302, IPC, and has sentenced the accused to undergo seven year rigorous imprisonment and the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The respondent No.2 accused also has been convicted for the charge under Sections 324 and 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo two and half years imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 324 IPC and to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 323, IPC. 2. The complainant's contention is that the respondent No.2 should have been convicted for charge under Section 302, IPC. The learned trial Court failed to consider the relevant facts that the accused set over the chest of the victim and inflicted severe injuries which could have been inflicted only with clear intention to kill the victim. The trial Court committed wrong by holding that there was no intention of the accused of eliminating and killing the victim. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Indraj pointed out that prosecution's own case is that incident happened because of some money transaction and the victim himself came to the house of the accused .The accused came out from his house without having any weapon with him, not even a lathi. It appears that in talking about the return of the money, heat generated and and the accused might not have controlled himself and inflicted injury by fists. The Trial Court's refused to accept the prosecution case that even victim was hit by legs. 4. We considered the facts of the case and the evidence on record. It appears that accused Indraj has also preferred appeal against his conviction for offence referred above, where he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment and in the accused respondent's appeal bail has already been granted. 5. 4. We considered the facts of the case and the evidence on record. It appears that accused Indraj has also preferred appeal against his conviction for offence referred above, where he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment and in the accused respondent's appeal bail has already been granted. 5. After going through the evidence on record and in view of the undisputed fact which can be accepted from the even prosecution case, without looking to the defence, we are of the view that so far as acquittal under Section 302, IPC, is concerned, the trial Court has considered the evidence very carefully and has not committed any wrong in drawing inference that there was no intention of the respondent No.2 for killing him. The prosecution's own case is that the victim went to demand repayment of loan from the accused and their quarrel took place. The accused neither came out from his house with any weapon nor lifted even any stone to injure the victim. He hit, repeatedly, with his hands, however, with force causing damage to liver of the victim. No inference can drawn from the evidence that the accused had intention to kill. 6. We do not find any just reason for entertaining this review petition in the light of the facts of the case. 7. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.Revision Petition Dismissed *******