' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that nine persons were tried by Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for an offence under section 302/323/148/149, P.P.C. They were tried for the murder of Ali Muhammad and causing injuries to one Mst. Rabia on 5-8-1980. The trial Court vide his judgment dated 22-11-1981 gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted all the accused. Revision against acquittal was filed wherein it was held that acquittal of Muhammad Hayat, Bahadur and Bati respondents need examination. As far as the other co-accused are concerned revision was dismissed to that extent.
2. I have heard learned counsel at length and gone through the judgment. The main point which found favour with the learned trial Court was that the accused from the very beginning come up with the plea of free fight which was accepted by a police officer who investigated the case. The learned trial Court has discussed the statements of Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Ishaque and Muhammad Hayat, P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 respectively who were the eye-witnesses and held that they were interested and inimical. The background of the enmity as disclosed by the complainant is a long history of criminal cases from both the sides. The criminal litigation between the parties stressed over for a period of 40 years in which many murders on each side took place. I have very carefully gone through the judgment and the reasons given by the learned trial Court for the acquittal of the respondents. I have not been able to find any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The learned trial Court had given cogent reasons for not relying upon the statements of the eye-witnesses. It is well established that mere fact that another view could be formed cannot be made the basis for reversing the findings of the learned trial Court. I am also informed that the parties have since compromised and the complainant does not wish to prosecute the revision any more. Though a compromise cannot be made the basis of acquittal yet it would be a circumstance to be kept in mind especially when criminal litigation between the parties going on for the last more than 40 years, can come to an end.
3. For what has been discussed above, I find no justification for interfering with the judgment of the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the revision fails which' is dismissed.