IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1317 of 2009 Kailash Pandit, son of Late Mahabir Pandit, resident of village- Amouna Bishanpur, P.S.-Uda Kishunganj, District- Madhepur. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Arun Pandit, son of Bindeshwari Pandit, resident of village-Amouna Kishunganj, District- Madhepur. ……………Opposite Parties ----------- 4. 20.10.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Madhepura in S.T.No.58/1998 arising out of Uda Kishunganj P.S.Case No.197/1996, by which the accused Arun Pandit, opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted. The informant-petitioner gave his statement before the police on 15.12.1986 in Kishunganj Hospital alongwith his injured father stating therein that in the preceding night after taking food, he was sleeping in his house, the informant woke up on the noise of his father Mahabir Pandit (deceased), who was sleeping at Darwaja and he came out and saw Rajo Pandit, Arun Pandit, Awadh Paswan and other accused, who threatened him and after hearing Hulla his villagers came there and Domi Sah and Bhagwat Sharma were running away. The deceased was lying in a pool of 2 blood and deceased stated about the assault caused by the persons in presence of several persons who had assembled there. He also stated that Rajo Pandit gave a knife blow in his abdomen, Tej Narayan Singh and Arun Pandit caught hold of the hand of the deceased. The accused persons struck on the deceased on account of which there was bleeding. The informant further alleged that he tied a bandage on his wound to prevent flowing of blood. The deceased was brought to the hospital on a cot for treatment. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Kishunganj P.S. Case No.197/1986 was instituted. The statement of the deceased Mahabir Pandit was taken at Madhepura Hospital and he died after 8 days of the occurrence at Darbhanga. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 6.12.1986. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Domi Sah and Rajiv Sah. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Tej Narayan Singh, Awadh Paswan, Arun Pandit (opposite party no.2) and Bhagwat Sharma under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 302 of the I.P.C. After trial, Arun Pandit and Awadh Paswan were acquitted and the other accused Domi Sah and Bhagwat Sharma were held guilty and convicted under 3 Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dying declaration (Exhibit-2) has been recorded by P.W.3 Md. J. Islam, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Madhepura and has proved the dying declaration. P.W.4 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination and has proved his post mortem report. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have supported the prosecution case, but the learned trial court has acquitted Arun Pandit, opposite party no.2 without any justification. The learned counsel for the State submits that altogether 4 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of them; P.W.1 Kailash Pandit is the informant (petitioner) and is the son of the deceased. He has named the other accused, who have committed the offence. He has not made any allegation against the opposite party no.2, Arun Pandit. He has only said in paragraph no.10 of his evidence that Arun Pandit is his Mausera brother. P.W.2 Subodh Pandit has stated in paragraph no.35 of his evidence that on 14.12.1986, Arun Pandit has gone to his maternal uncle’s house. No witness has stated that the opposite party 4 no.2 has committed any overt act, whereas, P.W.1 has stated that his father has stated that Domi Sah and Bhagwat assaulted him with Garansa on head and accused Tej Narayan caught hold of his hand. He has not stated anything in his evidence against Arun Pandit. As such, the learned trial court has held that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the guilt of accused Arun Pandit, opposite party no.2 and Awadh Paswan beyond reasonable doubt and hence, both of them have been acquitted. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order and other materials on the record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused, opposite party no.2. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)