Cr.P.C.statement ,he gave a specific statement that Ani and Noushad were referred to on a misconception. In the above circumstances, both the above persons were excluded from the array of accused and the final report laid. This become final in the absence of any challenge. It was also contended that, PW1 was examined earlier in SC No.770/2002 and he had given almost similar statement. It was contended that, neither the prosecution nor the Sessions Judge at the time of trial in SC No. 770/2002, on the basis of similar statement made by PW1, did not deem it fit to issue summons to the revision petitioner and Ani invoking section 319 Cr.P.C. It was further contended that, there were material evidences to show that, before laying the FIS, the defacto complainant had met the local leaders and hence, the possibility of a false implication of innocent prominent leaders could not be ruled out. It was also contended that, during the earlier trial PW1 was examined at length and in the new trial PW1 knew the loopholes and the weakness of the prosecution case and the defence of the accused. In the above circumstances, the possibility of PW1 giving an embellishment or improved versions in the second trial could not be ruled out. Evidently, that may prejudice the interest of the revision petitioner, it was argued. It was further contended that the only allegation against the revision petitioner was that he had shouted that “kill him”. According to PW1, such an utterance was made, aiming at him. It was stated that after that utterance, no further overtact was committed by any of the assailants. Evidently, there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner shared any common intention or
