ORDER : 1. By way of filing present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 21.05.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3, Jhalawar in Criminal Case No.111/2003, whereby, the learned trial court acquitted respondent Kalulal from the offences under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 325, 325/149, 326 & 307 I.P.C. and respondents Jagdish, Deshraj and Amarlal from the offences under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 325, 325/149, 326/149 & 307/149 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.03.2003 at about 09:30 PM complainant Radhey Shyam alongwith his brothers Chotulal, Hemraj, Mangilal, Ramesh & Bajranglal lodged a report stating therein that on 14.03.2003 at around 07:00 PM accused Jagdish, Deshraj & Ramesh in an intoxicated condition had abused the informant and others; at about 07:00 AM when the informant and Hemraj were having Tea at Raju Kumar's Tea Stall, Jadish, Deshraj and Ramesh armed with Sword and Kalu, Balram, Amarlal, & Parmanand armed with Gandasi and Lathis came there and started beating us; Kalu inflicted injury by Gandasi on the head and Deshraj inflicted injury by Lathi on the left hand of Radhey Shyam; Ramesh inflicted injury by Sword on the head of Hemraj and accused Deshraj & Jagdish caused injuries by Lathi on the left hand; when Mangilal, Ramesh & Bajranlal came to rescue the injured, accused started beating them and caused injuries on their head, hands, legs and back. On the aforesaid report, an FIR No.56/2003 was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused respondents. 3. The learned Sessions Court framed charges against the accused respondents for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent Kalulal from the offences under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 325, 325/149, 326 & 307 I.P.C. and respondents Jagdish, Deshraj and Amarlal from the offences under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 325, 325/149, 326/149 & 307/149 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 21.05.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner preferred this revision petition before this court. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and has wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents. It is argued that the learned trial court has erred in discarding the testimony of prosecution witnesses on the ground that they were accused in cross case and some of them were convicted. It is further argued that the learned trial court without considering the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant party has extended the benefit of right to private defence under Sections 96, 97 & 101 I.P.C. to the accused respondents. It is prayed that the judgment passed by learned court below may be set aside and revision petition may be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment passed by learned court below and opposed the revision petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The accused-respondents before the trial court took the specific plea while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they have been involved due to enmity and complainant party assaulted Balram, brother of the respondents and caused his death. It is also stated in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that in order to frame the defence in the murder case the complainant party have falsely implicated the accused persons. The eye witnesses of the incident PW-3 Chouthmal, PW-9 Raju @ Rajaram, PW-12 Hariram, PW-13 Tejkaran and PW-18 Bajranglal have been declared hostile and they denied the entire prosecution story that any such incident happened. The eye witnesses of the incident PW-3 Chouthmal, PW-9 Raju @ Rajaram, PW-12 Hariram, PW-13 Tejkaran and PW-18 Bajranglal have been declared hostile and they denied the entire prosecution story that any such incident happened. On cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor all the above witnesses have categorically denied the fact that any such incident occurred before them. PW-5 Radheyshyam complainant himself in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Kalulal, Jagdish, Deshraj and Amarlal assaulted Hemraj and Magilal. It is also deposed by the witnesses that accused Kalulal caused injury with Axe to injured Radheyshyam S/o Parmanand. The witness in his cross examination has admitted the fact that his brother Hemraj was prosecuted for murder of Shrawan, who is brother-in-law of accused Jagdish. He has denied the fact that a day before the incident altercation took place between him and accused Jagdish, Deshraj and Ramesh. In his examination-in-chief the witness has categorically stated that Hemraj caused injury to Deshraj with Sword and Jagdish hit Hemraj with the aid of Gandasi. In the cross-examination the witness has stated that the above all facts causing injury by Sword, Axe and Gandasi were stated before the police under statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and on confronting with statement Ex.-D1, the witness has showed unawareness about the non mentioning of above facts in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has admitted the fact that he is in jail in the matter of murder of Balram. The learned trial court disregarded the testimony of PW-5 Radheyshaym as being interested witness. The learned trial court was also of the view that witness has exaggerated his version and tried to improve the prosecution story by specifying the injury caused to Radheyshyam S/o Parmanand, Hemraj and Mangilal. Learned trial court also recorded the finding that the statement of PW-5 Radheyshyam itself is in contradiction to the statement of PW-8 Hemraj. PW-8 Hemraj in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Deshraj, Ramesh, Jagdish and Kalulal came with Sword, Sticks, Gandasi etc., and Ramesh hit him with Sword at his head. He has also deposed that afterwards his brother Radheyshyam was also beaten by accused Deshraj and Deshraj inflicted head injury with the aid of Gandasi to Radheyshyam. PW-8 Hemraj in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Deshraj, Ramesh, Jagdish and Kalulal came with Sword, Sticks, Gandasi etc., and Ramesh hit him with Sword at his head. He has also deposed that afterwards his brother Radheyshyam was also beaten by accused Deshraj and Deshraj inflicted head injury with the aid of Gandasi to Radheyshyam. He has further stated that accused Jagdish was having Gandasi in his hand and he assaulted him at his left hand and thereafter Radheyshyam locked him in his house. In his cross-examination he has admitted the fact that accused Jagdish's brother-in-law was murdered and he remained in jail in that case. He has also admitted the fact that his brother Radheyshyam has been convicted and also remained in jail in a murder case. He has also admitted the fact that Radheyshyam is still in custody in the matter of causing death to accused persons' brother Balram. He has denied the fact that accused Balram was present at the time of occurrence. He has also denied the fact that in Ex.-D4 presence of Balram was stated by him. In cross-examination after reading out the portion A to B of Ex.-D4, he has categorically denied the fact that Balram was having Gandasi in his hand. He has also stated that in the statement recorded before police he stated the fact that accused Ramesh inflicted injury at his head with the aid of Sword but he was unaware about the fact that why this fact has not been mentioned in his statement Ex.-D4. He himself in his cross-examination had denied the earlier version that Radheyshyam hit Deshraj with the aid of Gandasi. The learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of PW-5 Radheyshyam as he himself was an accused in a cross case and also the interested witnesses. The learned trial court has also arrived to the conclusion that there is contradiction in the statements of PW-5 Radheyshyam and PW-8 Hemraj. PW-10 Radheyshyam S/o Parmanand one of the injured, in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Kalulal hit with the aid of Gandasi at his head. Deshraj inflicted injury with Stick at his left arm. He has further deposed that accused Ramesh inflicted injury with the aid of Swaord at Hemraj. He has further deposed that Jagdish and Deshraj were having Sticks with them. Deshraj inflicted injury with Stick at his left arm. He has further deposed that accused Ramesh inflicted injury with the aid of Swaord at Hemraj. He has further deposed that Jagdish and Deshraj were having Sticks with them. He also stated that accused Raju, Chouthmal, Balu, Dalu, Khatana were there and they also tried to intervene. He has also stated that witnesses Ramesh and Bajranglal were also beaten. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is unaware about the fact that whether Balram is alive or dead. He has admitted the fact that Radheyshyam brother of Hemraj, Mangilal, Ramesh and Banjranglal are in jail but is unaware about the reason for their custody. He further stated that at the time of incident 50 persons were present. In his cross examination, he stated that in FIR Ex.-P7, the fact is wrongly mentioned that Jagdish and Deshraj were having Sword with them. He has also admitted that in FIR Ex.-P7 and statement Ex.-D5 name of Dalu is not mentioned. The learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of the said witness on the ground that he evaded the answer despite knowingly the fact that Balram has been murdered. He has also exaggerated his version with regard to presence of witnesses Balu, Dalu and Khatana at place of occurrence. In the FIR Ex.-P7 he has denied the story that Jagdish and Deshraj were having Sword with them. The learned trial court also recorded the fact that this witness is also interested witness as his name appeared in the cross case lodged by the accused persons and later on police has dropped his name. The involvement of accused Ramesh in the alleged incident was not found and police did not file any charge-sheet against accused Ramesh. All the material witnesses viz. PW-5 Radheyshyam, PW-8 Hemraj and PW-10 Radheyshyam S/o Parnamanand have stated different stories and learned trial court has rightly disbelieved their testimony. The testimony of PW-6 Mangilal has also been disbelieved as there were contradictions in the evidence of PW-6 from the evidence of PW-5 Radheyshyam, PW-8 Hemraj and PW-10 Radheyshyam S/o Parmanand. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that accused persons were having Sword, Gandasi and Sticks with them and Deshraj hit at him with the aid of Sword and Jagdish inflicted injury with the help of Gandasi to injured Hemraj. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that accused persons were having Sword, Gandasi and Sticks with them and Deshraj hit at him with the aid of Sword and Jagdish inflicted injury with the help of Gandasi to injured Hemraj. He has also stated that accused Kalu inflicted injury at the head of Radheyshyam with the aid of Gandasi. He has also stated that accused Parmanand and Amarlal caused injuries with the help of Stick at his hand. In his cross-examination he has admitted the fact that Radheyshyam and Hemraj are in jail in the matter of Shrawan's murder. He has also stated that during the incident they all took shelter in the hotel of Raju Kumhar. He has denied that Ramesh and Bajrang were present at the place of occurrence. He has also denied the fact that in his police statement he did not mention the fact that Deshraj was having Sword, Kalu was having Gandasi and other accused were having Sticks with them. The learned trial court also disbelieved the testimony of PW-6 Mangilal as his evidence is in contradiction to eye witnesses PW-5 Radheyshyam, PW-8 Hemraj & PW-10 Radheyshyam S/o Parmanand. The learned trial court also specifically arrived to the conclusion that the injuries caused to PW-10 Radheyshyam S/o Parmanand were though found to be dangerous in nature but prosecution failed to establish the fact that the injuries caused to Radheyshyam were inflicted by a particular accused. PW-10 Radheyshyam has attributed the injury caused to him to accused Kalulal whereas in contradiction to the statement of PW-10 Radheyshyam and PW-8 Hemraj has attributed this injury to accused Hemraj. The learned trial court also recorded the finding that PW-5 Radheyshyam & PW-6 Mangilal are accused of cross case and were found involved in the murder case of deceased Balram. The prosecution also failed to examine the investigating officer. The learned trial court also recorded the finding that non examination of Chotulal is also fatal to the prosecution. The learned trial court also recorded the specific finding that the trial of the cross case Sessions being Case No.113/2003 has also been conducted with this case and after examining the witnesses in the Sessions Case it found that complainant party of this case was aggressor to the incident. The learned trial court also recorded the specific finding that the trial of the cross case Sessions being Case No.113/2003 has also been conducted with this case and after examining the witnesses in the Sessions Case it found that complainant party of this case was aggressor to the incident. The learned trial court also recorded that injuries caused to the complainant party may be a result of right to private defence available to the accused party. Learned trial court also recorded the finding that non-examination of Chotulal @ Parmanand who is another injured is also fatal to the prosecution. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court in acquitting the accused under aforesaid offences. 9. Accordingly the instant Criminal Revision Petition is hereby disallowed.