1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.113 of 2002 Ajaz Ahmad ………. Revisionist Versus Inayat Ali & others ..…. Respondents Dated: August 9, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Even on revised calls, none turns up on behalf of revisionist as well as on behalf of the respondents while Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder is present on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.5. This revision is directed against the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar dated 14.8.2002 whereby all the private respondents no.1 to 4 were acquitted from the offence of Section 364 r/w Section 34, 302 r/w Section 34 and 201 IPC. Against this acquittal order, the complainant Ajaz Ahmad has filed this revision, which was admitted for hearing. While the notices were sent upon the private respondents, only the no.3 was served personally while rest of the respondents have left their place so they could not be served. In these circumstances, this Court has gone through the grounds of revision and has heard the learned brief holder. All the grounds of revision are unsubstantial, stereotyped without disclosing any material irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. It appears that the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and all the circumstances could not form a chain so that to lead an irresistible conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused persons. This Court feels that the 2 learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused persons. There is no force in this revision which is liable to be dismissed. Revision is accordingly dismissed. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 09.08.2011 Rajeev Dang