IMPORTANT POINT
Where evidence is discussed elaborately by the Court below and acquitted the 'accused without over looking any material evidence in the point then Revision against it by a private complainant would be liable to be dismissed.

JUDGMENT

B. C. Chakrabarti, J. -This is revisional application at the instance of the defacto complainant and is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; Bankura in, Sessions Case No. 7 of January 1981. The opposite parties 1 to 5 faced trial on various charges under sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 324/149 J.P. Code. They were acquitted of all the charges.

2. Against the order acquittal the State did not prefer any appeal. The Rule was obtained by the petitioner who is the brother of the defacto complainant. The de facto complainant Bibhuti has since died.

3. Facts of the case leading to the present revisional application may be briefly stated thus.

4. The incident occurred on 6th Agrahyan 1385 B.S. on 259 of mouza Karga hir. The case for the prosecution was that on that day in the morning the petitioner along with his brother, sister, wife and other members of the family went upon the land and while they were tying the harvested paddy into bundles, the accused persons namely the opposite parties came there being variously armed-opposite party No.1 being armed with a gun. Opposite party No. 1 Subhash directed the paddy to be carried to his khamar. This was opposed by the petitioner and his brother Bibhuti since deceased on a claim that they had grown and harvested the paddy. Over this there was some altercation in course of which Subhash fired from his gun resulting in the death of Hadi Bauri, sister of the complainant; and injury to Bejoy Bauri. Bibhuti, Karali and Bhakti wife of Karali were also assaulted. Thereafter the accused persons left the place leaving the gun behind. The injured persons and Hadi Bauri were removed to Hospital while Bibhuti went to the police station. On the basis of the information lodged by him the case, being Bankura, P. S. case No. 37 dated 22.11.1978 was started and investigation was taken up. The I.O. visited the spot, seized a S.B.B.L. gun, some harvesteo paddy stained with blood and other articles, examined witnesses, and sent the seized gun for examination by the Arms Expert. The autopsy surgeon opined that Hadi Bauri died as a result of gun shot injury. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons (opposite parties herein.)

5. The defence case as it transpired from the trend of cross-examination of the P.Ws. the suggestions put to them and their own statements made during examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. is as follows:

Subhas Das Musib has been in possession of the land in question and the paddy was actually grown and harvested by him. The harvested paddy lay on the field for drying. On the morning of the relevant day the complainant party came upon the land with a view to take away the harvested crop. Subhas was then away from home. His sons Dipak and Pradip sent there bare handed and they having protested against the unlawful act of the complainant party were assaulted. Subhas having coming to know of this came there with the gun. He too was assaulted with iron rod and lathi and Bibhuti and Karali tried to snatch away the sun from him. In course of the scuffle, the gun accidentally went off and hit Hadi and some pellets also hit Bejoy. Karali succeeded in snatching away the gun. After the incident the accused persons left the place and went to Gavindanagar Hospital of treatment. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. Precisely their plea was that the land was in their possession, that the complainant party tried to loot away the harvested crop and that the death of Hadi Bauri was the result of an accidental firing from the gun. In other words the defence pleaded section 80 I.P.C.

6. The learned Judge in the court below found upon the evidence on record that there was no evidence of possession or cultivation of the crop by the complainant party, that the accused party were in possession, that some members of the accused party also sustained injuries under circumstances which the prosecution fa