IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1426 of 2009 Awadhesh Prasad Singh Yadav, son of Late Sakaldeep Roy, resident of village-Kapura, P.S.-Pipra, District- Patna. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Dewaki Nandan, son of Late Sakaldeep Roy. 3. Sushil Kumar, son of Dewaki Nandan Roy. 4. Pratibha Devi, wife of Sushil Kumar. (All are residents of Khapura, P.S.-Pipra, District- Patna) 5. Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Bhubaneshwar Prasad Yadav, resident of village-Chhotaki Masaurhi, P.S.-Masaurhi, District- Patna. ……….Opposite Parties ----------- 2. 21.10.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IX, Patna in Cr. Appeal No.285 of 2006 by which he has been pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 5.09.2006 passed by the learned trial court in Trial No.273/2006 arising out of Pipra P.S. Case No.18 of 1996, G.R.No.4288 of 1996 and the appeal has been allowed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.11.1996 at about 1.00 P.M. while the informant was going to Bajidpur from his house, his younger brother Dhananjay Kumar restrained him at gun point and thereafter assaulted him by gun-barrel whereby his left hand was fractured. He then 2 raised alarm and his wife came to save him. The accused Sushil Kumar assaulted his wife, whereby her left hand was fractured. She also received injuries on another part of her body. The other accused including Sanjay Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Pratima Devi also assaulted them. On the basis of the written information of the informant, Pipra P.S. Case No.18/1996 was lodged under Sections 323 and 341/34 of the I.P.C. The charge-sheet was submitted against total five accused persons i.e. these four and one Dhananjay Kumar, who is not appellant in the aforesaid criminal appeal. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the I.P.C. and they have been sentenced to R.I. for one year under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for one month under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for six months under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and all the sentences to run concurrently vide order dated 5.09.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.285/2006 against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal has been allowed by 3 acquitting the opposite parties from the said charges vide impugned order dated 27.05.2009. Heard Mr. Prakash Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has considered the evidence properly and has held the accused guilty, but the learned appellate court without proper consideration of the evidence has set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned judgment and order that the learned trial court has not considered the contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which has been noticed by the learned appellate court and has come to the finding that the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court has been set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the judgment and order passed by 4 the learned appellate court as well as the learned trial court, it appears that the learned appellate court has considered the evidence recorded by the learned trial court. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is contradictory and is against the written report of the prosecution. The learned appellate court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and as such, the accused have been acquitted by setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)