IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.396 of 2007 Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, son of Ganga Prasad Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Mulchand Road, Ward No.6, P.S.-Town, District- Samastipur. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Manu Prasad Rajak, son of late Mukhi Dhobi. 3. Tara Devi, daughter of Late Ramesh Prasad. 4. Sunita Devi, daughter of Late Ramesh Prasad (All residents of Mohalla-Mulchand Road, P.S.-Town, District- Samastipur) …………..Opposite Parties ----------- 9. 24.10.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Samastipur in S.T.No.354/ 1996/ 123/2003 by which the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.06.1993 at about 6.00 A.M., the informant was ready to go to school and his sister Renu Kumari was sweeping her courtyard. In the meantime, Tara Devi, Manu Prasad Rajak and Sunita Devi came at the roof of the informant from their roof and told him that why he does not leave this house and threatened him that until one or two 2 members of the family would not die, they would not leave the house. Thereafter, all the three accused persons pressed the wall of informant’s roof, which fell on the person of the informant and his sister causing injuries on both of them. The cause of occurrence is that one year prior to the occurrence, the informant’s father Ganga Choudhary purchased the aforesaid house from Bidul Kumar Choudhary through the registered sale deed and since then the accused persons threatened the informant to leave the house and entered into the house of the informant and assaulted the informant’s father and in that case Tara Devi was convicted and the appeal was pending. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No.279/1993 was instituted against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against the accused under Sections 323, 448, 427, 307 and 338 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the accused have been acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the evidence against the accused, they have 3 been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution. Out of the nine witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 are not the eye witnesses. The evidence of other witnesses does not inspire confidence. P.W.9 is the formal witness. P.W.8 is a doctor, who has examined the victim Renu Kumari and the informant Nirmal Kumar. The doctor has stated that the injuries are simple in nature. It has been found that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case as the prosecution (informant and the members of his family) does not want to vacate the house, which has been purchased by the accused and they have been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. The learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. The defence has also adduced the documentary as well as oral evidence. There has been dispute between both the parties relating to the house, in question. The father of the informant has 4 resided in that house as a tenant for the year 1965. The evidence of the victim and his relatives have been found to be not convincing and after considering all the materials, the learned trial court has not found the accused guilty and accordingly, they have been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances 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.)