UMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by order dated 30.05.1996 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Session Trial No. 521 of 1994, whereby Respondents were acquitted from the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.

(3.) Despite repeated query learned counsel for revisionist could not point out any error in the judgment in question particularly in view of the categorical finding recorded by Court below in para 28 of judgment that both the witnesses of fact, i.e., PWs-1 and 2 were not present at the time of incident in village in question. Their testimony has also been found contrary to medical report and Court below has also recorded finding that First Information Report was ante-time. These findings have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record so as to justify interference in criminal revision.