JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. None appeared for the revisionist. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record. Since the criminal revision can not be dismissed in default, hence this revision is being decided on merit.

2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.T. No. 630 of 2005 (State vs. Ram Chandra and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 333 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Bhuta, Bareilly, by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. XI, Bareilly on 9.1.2009.

3. In brief, the revision has been filed on the grounds that Additional Session Judge has not considered all the facts and circumstances and acquitted respondent no. 1 which is not correct in the eyes of law. He has not passed the judgment in accordance with criminal law, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside and revision be allowed.

4. In brief facts of the case are that informant-revisionist (PW-1) Fida Hussain lodged an F.I.R. that on 14.7.2004, he along with his sons Pappu @ Israr (deceased), Iqbal (PW-2) and one Noor Hasan wa