The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of benefit of doubt, the principle of preponderance of probabilities, and the legal provisions for compensation for victims of crime.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The complainant contests revision of judgment and order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Special Judge/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 1993. The learned Judge by the impugned order held the accused-respondents entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently not guilty and acquitted them on the charges under sections 307, 325, 504, 506, 323 read with section 34 IPC.

3. The revisionist lodged FIR on 10.10.1998 at 19.25 stating therein, in brief, that over the quarrel between the children of the revisionist and accused-Ramjit, at about 5.00 p.m. accused Ramjit came to her gate reviled and thrashed her with fists, kicks and a stick; on the uproar her husband Ram Deo came to her rescue; accused-respondents Sarvajit, Jagdish and Jhinak armed with sticks and farsa also arrived and laid on her husband with intention to kill him; Ramjit gave a farsa blow to her husband; Ram Chandra, Suresh and many other persons arrived and witnessed the incident; the accused went away, abusing and threatening; her husband received serious injuries; his condition was very serious, and therefore she took him to Government Hospital, Siddharth Nagar and after medical examination of herself and her husband she lodged the FIR.

4. The prosecution examined the informant-revisionist and her husband Ramdev-both injured witnesses, Suresh and Ram Chandra as independent witnesses in addition to the formal witnesses such as Doctor, Investigating Officer, and the Constable clerk. The trial Judge evaluated the evidence. He foundered on doubt and entered the verdict of acquittal.

A perusal of the record shows that the trial Judge laid it too much on some of the aspects of the case such as delay in lodging the FIR and non-reliability of the statements of Suresh and Ram Chandra, but at the same time improvement of the version by adding weapons not mentioned in the FIR and plausible inconsistency between oral evidence and medical opinion in regard to injuries.

5. The informant-revisionist initially states in the FIR that Ramjit beat her with fists, kicks and a stick, but at the later stage she says Ramjit gave farsa blows to her husband. Ramjit has not been shown changing weapons at the spot nor any interragnum is mentioned between initial encounter of Ramjit with the informant and Ramjit with his associates coming with weapons at the spot. Similarly, in the statements on oath of both the injured witnesses, Sarvajit has been shown armed with and wielding a bhala. This weapon finds no mention in the FIR nor in the Statements of the witnesses before the Investigating Officer.

6. Smt Savitri Devi, the revisionist sustained three injuries accompanied with swelling caused by hard blunt object and Ramdev six injuries including three lacerated wounds, one incised wound and one abraded contusion and one defused traumatic swelling. Ramdev states on oath that all the accused beat him with farsa, bhala and sticks specifying that he received bhala injury on his right palm and two farsa injuries on the head, one of them was sustained on the head above the ear.

7. Learned counsel for the private-respondent contends that the learned Judge rightly held that the injury on the head was not caused by sharp edged weapon such as farsa, as the doctor did not find any incised wound on the head. The injury found on the head was lacerated wound and this contradicts the version of the witness that he was given a farsa blow on the head.

8. I do not agree with this contention: It is true that sharp edged weapons cause incised wounds and farsa is also a sharp edged weapon. It is also true that weapons which are not used daily or sharpened regularly do not always incise clean cut particularly where some extraneous objects such as hair or synthetic clothes intervene. Besides, the doctors normally do not use nor do they mention in the report they used magnifying glasses to detect th