IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1026 of 2008 Balmiki Yadav, son of Late Roop Lal Yadav, resident of village Chitarbai, P.S.-Khaira, District- Jamui. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Baleshwar Yadav @ Bali Yadav, son of Shibu Yadav. 3. Shankar Yadav, son of Shibu Yadav. 4. Lakhan Yadav, son of Sewak Yadav. 5. Arjun Yadav, son of Sokhi Yadav. 6. Pryag Yadav, son of Shibu Yadav. 7. Krishna Yadav, son of Barho Yadav. ( Opposite party nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 are residents of village- Chitarbar, O.P. No.4 is resident of village-Bojhail, P.S.- Kharira, opposite party no.7 is resident of village-Masohri, P.S.-Khaira, District- Jamui). ……….Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 17.11.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the part of the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Jamui in Sessions Trial No.448/1998 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1.10.1997 at about 11.00 P.M., the informant petitioner Balmiki Yadav was at his Darwaja after taking meal and he saw 15/16 persons coming toward his house. It is alleged that said persons started to abuse at his house and informant identified 6 accused persons by voice. Accused Barho 2 Yadav ordered to fire from the arms then deceased Ruplal Yadav started to flee away and in course of said fleeing the deceased sustained fir arms injuries and succumbed to death. Informant petitioner identified 8 accused persons in the torch light. On 2.10.1997 at 12 hours informant Balmiki Yadav stated about occurrence of this case before Khaira Police. Informant also stated before police that accused persons were standing near Jack fruit trees caught Chamru Yadav and started to call Nirmala, Kuldipa and Ramdewa ande subsequently entered in the house of informant by abusing him. Informant identified Barho Yadeav, Mathura Yadav, Baleshwar Yadav, Shankar Yadav, Krishna Yadav and Darho Yadav who ordered to shot him then informant and his father began to flee towards village. Informant identified accused persons in the light of torch with him. Father of informant was old so he was running slowly and accused persons shot him, from which he sustained injury and fell down. Some villagers thrown bricks and stones over accused persons and in the same course identified some of them. On the next morning informant came to know that with a view to convert the occurrence in dacoity, accused persons committed alleged 3 occurrence because in the same night there had been occurrence of dacoity in the house of one Kedar Modi in the adjoining village- Darima where cloth and other articles were looted and accused persons committed occurrence alleged in the case. Cause of occurrence asserted in the Fardbeyan of the informant is that one year before the dispute between Barho Yadav and his step brother namely Darogi Yadav are on terms of litigation for partition for which local panchayti was held but Barho Yadav refused to obey the panchayti and from that time Barho Yadav and his brothers used to threatened for murder and so Barho Yadav with his 5 brothers and inviting his relatives under their pre-planning armed with deadly weapons reached the door of informant and having found informant and Darogi yadav there, they became angry and committed murder of Ruplal Yadav, who fled to save himself. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan of the informant, Khaira P.S. Case No.84/1997 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions. After the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Jamui has acquitted the accused 4 persons on the basis of benefit of doubt. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution has been considered carefully by the learned court below and has come to the finding that the substance of charge remained vague and suspicious, so accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. 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.)