IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1167 of 2009 Lila Kumari @ Lila Devi d/o Ganga yadav, residence of village- Pursalliya, Police Station- Kaluyahi, District- Madhubani. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Bisheshwar Yadav Sadai s/o Chandra Shekh Sadai residence of village- Mangpatti, Police Station- Harlakhi, District- Madhubani. 3. Ram Kishore Yadav son of Bhakh Yadav, resident of village Mang Patti P.S. Harlakhi District- Madhubani. 4. Badri Sadai son of Bhulia Sadai 5. Ramprit Sadai son of Chatu Sadai Both resident of village Umgaon, Police Station Harlakhi District- Madhubani. 6. Jaydev Yadav son of Hari Yadav 7. Ram Prabodh Yadav son of Yaydeo Yadav Both resident of village Purshoulli, Police Station Kaluhani District Madhubani. 8. Parikhan Yadav @ Ram Parikshan Yadav son of Bathan Yadav resident of village Kursauli, Police Station Kaluhahi, District- Madhubani. 9. Hari Nonia son of Jiwach Nonia resident of village Pursaulia Police Station Kaluyahi District- Madhubani. 10. Ram Prit Yadav son of Bathan Yadav, resident of village- Pursaliya Police Station Kaluahi District- Madhubani. 11. Ram Binod Yadav son of Jaideo yadav, resident of village Pursaulia, Police Station Kaluyahi, District Madhubani. .. Opp. Party. ----------- 3. 24.08.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29th May 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC- III, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1998/62 of 2008 arising out of Kaluahi P. S. 2 Case No. 130 of 1995, G. R. No. 1463 of 1995 by which the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 11 have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fard beyan, in brief, is that in the night of 15/16 September 1995, the informant- petitioner was sleeping in the varandha of the house with her mother Ghurni Devi after taking meal, at about 11 P.M. the informant felt that someone was pushing the main gate and one person was looking at the courtyard through wall of the gate. She narrated this fact to her mother. In the meantime, the door was opened and three persons entered into the house, out of them one was armed with pistol and he made two fires and two persons caught hold of the informant and began to drag her. On raising alarm, they (accused) caused injury to the informant with knife. The mother of the informant began to cry then the accused freed the informant and caught hold of her mother and they began to drag her out from the courtyard. The accused persons also caused knife injury to her mother. The informant raised alarm, thereafter, all the three accused brought the 3 informant’s mother out and caused injury on her with knife which caused her death. All the three criminals were bearing Kachha and they had covered their face with cloths. After that, the villagers arrived, informed the local police station and sent the informant to the hospital for treatment. It has also been mentioned in the fard beyan that the criminals did not loot any property from the house nor they had made any effort to take away any article. There is enmity between the informant and some villagers. The enmity arose after the marriage of the informant’s brother and the villagers were always threatening the informant’s father to assault. During treatment the fard beyan of the informant was recorded. On this fard beyan Khajauli (Kaluahi) P. S. Case No. 130 of 1995 was registered against three unknown accused persons. After concluding investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the six accused persons under Sections 302/120 B I.P.C. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken against them. During trial, other accused were summoned under the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under 4 Sections 302/34 and 120 B I.P.C. After trial the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 11 have been acquitted by the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution out of them P.W. 10, Subhash Chandra Mishra is a formal witness who has proved the fard beyan (Ext. 3). Apart from the oral evidence documentary evidence has also been adduced. No defence evidence has been adduced. It also appears that the learned trial court has minutely considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been found reliable and it has been held that the prosecution has not been able to establish its charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and it is difficult to hold the accused persons guilty for the alleged occurrence. Considering all the evidence, the learned trial court has held that the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt and they have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety of the impugned order. I also do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)