IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1184 of 2009 Gorakh Prasad, son of Shiv Pujan Prasad, resident of village- Godhawa, P.S.-Muffasil, District-East Champaran at Motihari. Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Birendra Prasad, son of Shree Prasad, resident of village- Godhawa, P.S.-Muffasil, District- East Champaran at Motihari. ----------- 2. 24.08.2011 The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in S.Tr.No.387/2006 by which the accused opposite party no.2 has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.07.2005 in the midnight, the informant was sleeping in his house with his brother Kundan Kumar. The accused Birendra Prasad came there and threw acid on him. The informant woke up and saw Birendra Prasad running away and he tried to catch hold of him, but due to acid on his body he had burning sensation on his chest, face, both hands and legs. His brother Kundan Kumar also received acid on his right hand. The reason for the occurrence is land dispute. On the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant, 2 Muffasil P.S. Case No.185/05 was registered under Section 328 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. Cognizance were taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions and after the trial, the impugned order has been passed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses to prove its charge. The defence of the accused is total denial of the allegation and has stated that due to enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this case. It further appears that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution carefully. The evidence of the prosecution has not been found to be trustworthy and it has been found that their evidence is not fit to be relied upon as their evidence is contradictory. The learned trial court has found that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and thereby the accused has been acquitted. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. In the result, this application is dimissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)