1. ' This criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 29-7-1976, acquitting Talib and Ashiq respondents from the charge under section 302/34 P.P.C. The petitioner in this case is Muhammad Gulzat%who is appellant in the cross-case (Cr.A.No,911/76) which I have decided today i.e, 3-6-1985. I have gone through the judgment and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel. In this case the deceased is Atta Muhammad and it is the case of the prosecution itself that he was done to death by a shot which had been fired through the pistol of Allah Bakhsh alias Bakhshoo deceased and that Allah Bakhsh alias Bakhshoo deceased was murdered at the hands of the petitioner's party including the petitioner in the cross-case. The petitioner and his other brothers who are mentioned in the judgment had received injuries as stated by them, at the hands of the accused side in the instant case. But it may be pointed out that it was a sudden fight in which only those persons could have participated who had themselves received injuries as the nature of the cross-cases is such. In the cross-case two members of the accused side in the present case had been killed at the hands of the complainant side. Had Talib respondent been present, he would have also been either injured or killed. Anyway, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial Court for the main reason that no injuries were found on the person of Talib respondent which signified his non- presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. As I have pointed out earlier the nature of this case is such that whoever was present including the women, had received injuries in the fight of the parties. So Talib respondent was rightly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. So far as Ashiq respondent is concerned, the complainant side did not press their case as against him as they had entered into a compromise and it is stated in the judgment of the trial Court that the prosecution had itself taken particular care to exonerate Ashiq respondent. Since this is the position in my view the trial Court rightly gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted Talib and Ashiq respondents in the instant case. Consequently no interference is called for. The result is that this criminal revision is dismissed in limine.