A.K. Trivedi, J. - Due to non-presence of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.2, the record has properly and minutely been gone through with the assistance of learned Additional P.P.

2. Petitioner/informant has challenged the judgment dated 13.6.2002 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Fast Track Court, Munger in Sessions Trial No.144 of 1992 acquitting the Opposite Party No.2.

3. Informant Suresh Prasad Singh gave his fardbeyan on 19.5.1991 at about 10.15 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Munger which was recorded by police officials of Kotwali P.S. disclosing therein that on the same day at about 8.30 P.M. while he was in his mango orchard for keeping watch, his co-villager Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2) whose orchard also lies adjacent to his orchard and who was present there, called him. He had gone there and found Gopal Jha, Manoj Tanti along with one unknown person with Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2). Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2) enquired from him regarding purchase of land from his brother Phuleshwar Jha and for that he threatened to assault. In the meantime, on an order of Gopal Jha, Gangadhar Jha took out pistol and fired causing injury over his abdomen. Subsequent round was also fired but could not hit. The persons having in surrounding rushed and rescued him. He was thereafter taken to hospital. Animosity since before has been shown to be motive of the aforesaid occurrence.

4. Thereafter, the aforesaid fardbeyan was sent to Mufassil P.S. whereupon Mufassil P.S. Case No. 110 of 1991 was registered and then thereafter the investigation commenced and concluded by way of filing of charge-sheet only against Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2) as well as Manoj Tanti (absconder). However, Gopal Jha was not sent up for trial.

5. During course of trial five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution as well as series of documents have also been exhibited. In the similar way, series of documents have been brought up on record on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2/accused. It is further evident that I.O. has been examined as C.W.1 while doctor has been examined as C.W.2.

6. From the grounds taken up by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has challenged the judgment impugned (a) after examination of doctor, the assault by means of fire-arm is fully proved, (b) the evidence of the witnesses have been appreciated and dealt with under wrong prescription, (c) animosity amongst the parties are admitted one, (d) the objective finding of the I.O. during course of inspection of the P.O. is found supported with the prosecution version.

7. At the other hand, the plea of the Opposite Party No. 2 happens to be with regard to complete denial of occurrence. The injured happens to be renowned criminal of the locality being an accused in so many cases might have sustained injury at different place in different manner by different persons but as animosity was prevailing amongst the parties, therefore, got this case filed implicating the petitioner. It has also been pleaded that the prosecution version suffers from improbability on account of the fact that much before the alleged date of occurrence Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2) had already filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1990 for declaring the sale deed inoperative and not binding upon him which was executed by his brother in favour of informant therefore neither there was any occasion for the Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2) to call the informant and in likewise manner, the informant was also not expected to go to Gangadhar Jha (Opposite Party No.2). Not only this, the witnesses also belong to his camp and for that by exhibiting documents their status was exposed.

8. In Venkatesan v. Rani and others, AIR 2013 SC 3320, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines for adjudicating upon revision against acquittal. The relevant para is quoted below :

"6. To answer the questions that have arisen in the present case, as not