IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1371 of 2009 Vijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar, son of Sri Rajendra Yadav, resident of village- Araraha, P.S.-Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Bindeshwari Yadav, son of Sri Dhodhay Yadav. 3. Priyabrat Yadav, son of Late Panchu Yadav. 4. Dhiren Yadav, son of Sri Chano Yadav. 5. Mithilesh Yadav @ Mitan Yadav, son of Sri Priyabrat Yadav. 6. Gulab Yadav @ Gulo Yadav, son of Lalte Bijal Yadav. 7. Chandeshwari Prasad Yadav @ Chano Yadav, son of Late Asarfi Yadav. 8. Arvind Yadav, son of Sri Kishundhan Yadav. 9. Ram Chandra Yadav, son of Sri Priybrat Yadav. 10. Naresh Yadav, son of Sri Srichandra Yadav. 11. Ram Pukar Yadav, son of Srichandra Yadav. 12. Sulo Yadav, son of Sri Kishundhan Yadav. 13. Kamal Yadav, son of Late Asarfi Yadav. 14. Ashok Yadav @ Abhesh Yadav, son of Sri Srichandra Yadav. 15. Manoj Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Gulab Yadav. 16. Jay Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Bindeshwari Yadav. 17. Dilip Yadav, son of Sri Gulab Yadav. 18. Rajdeep Yadav, son of Sri Bindeshwari Yadav. (All are residents of village-Araraha, P.S.-Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa) ………Opposite Parties ----------- 3. 18.10.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.VI, Saharsa in S.T.No.143/2002 arising out of Sour Bazar P.S.Case No.215/2001, G.R.No.1197/2001 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 18 have 2 been acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307, 149, 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.12.2001, the informant Vijay Kumar was ploughing his field, all the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 18 armed with various weapons came there and abused him and asked him as to why he was ploughing the land. At the instance of the accused Gulab Yadav, the accused Dilip Yadav shot fire which passed by the side of the ear of the informant. The accused Bindeshwari Yadav tried to kill. The accused Rajdip Yadav assaulted Bhutto Yadav on the hand by the back portion of the Farsa for which his hand was fractured. Bhutto Yadav fell down. All the accused assaulted him with Lathi. After going from the place of occurrence, the accused Gulab Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Jay Kumar Yadav took away tools of plough from the field of the informant. The occurrence was witnesses by Goni Yadav, Baleshwar Yadav and Sanjay Yadav. After this occurrence, the accused person went to the house of the Bishundeo Yadav. The accused Bindeshwari Yadav gave Farsa blow. The accused Rajdeep Yadav gave a Farsa blow on the head of Arhulia Devi and accused Dilip 3 Yadav assaulted Arhulia Devi. The accused Rajdeep Yadav, Sulo Yadav, Gulo Yadav and Priyabrat Yadav entered into the house of the informant and stolen various articles worth Rs.1000/-. On the basis of the written information of the informant, Sour Bazar Bazar P.S. Case No.215/2001 was registered against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The defence of the accused is that all the accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to enmity and land dispute as the prosecution party has purchased the land which had already been purchased by the accused Bindeshwari Yadav and his sons earlier. After the trial, the accused have been acquitted by the impugned order dated 23.05.2009. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether 15 witnesses, out of them, P.W.8, P.W.9 & P.W.12 have been declared hostile and P.W.15 is the formal witness. The defence has examined Bindeshwari Yadeav as D.W.1 and documentary evidence have also 4 been filed on behalf of the accused. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and it has been found that the evidence of eye witness 1, 3 and 10 have not been corroborated by the medical testimony of P.W.14. The evidence of other witnesses has also been found to be contradictory and lodging of the case has been found doubtful. It has been found that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case beyond the reasonable doubt and all the accused have been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances as 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.)