IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1215 of 2009 Amresh Thakur, son of Dalsingar Thakur, resident of village- Gobardhana, Police Station- Sikarpur,District- West Champaran at Bettiah. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ramakant Tiwary @ Ramant Tiwary, son of Byas Tiwary. 3. Tunna Tiwary, Son of Ramakant Tiwary, 4. Laddu Tiwary, son of Ramakant Tiwary, All resident of village- Gobardhana, Police Station- Sikarpur, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. … Opp. Parties. ------- For the Petitioner Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP. ----------- 3. 12.09.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 24th January 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1997 by which the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 341, 307, 504/34 I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8.8.1996 at about 10 a.m. the accused Ramakant Tiwary, Tunna Tiwary and Laddu Tiwari armed with Lathi, Bhala and Farsa came to the door of the informant and abused and threatened him which was protested by the informant, 2 thereafter, Ramakant tried to assault on the head of the informant which caused injury on his palm. Munna Tiwari attacked with Bhala which was caught by the wife of the informant. Laddu Tiwari assaulted the informant which caused injury in his right thigh and Samudri Devi, wife of the informant was also injured. Complaint case No. 816 C of 1996 was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which was later on sent to the police and Shikarpur P. S. Case No. 147 of 1996 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307 and 504 I.P.C. against all the three accused. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 to which they denied and claimed to be tried. After trial, the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses out of them P. W. 1 Yogendra Thakur, the own brother of the 3 informant has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. P.W. 2 Nand Pandit has supported the prosecution case and P. W. 3 Samudri Devi, the wife of the informant and P.W. 4, Amresh Thakur (petitioner) have also supported the prosecution case. It also appears that their evidence has been considered by the learned trial Court and it has been found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not corroborative rather contradictory. It has also been held that informant and his wife, Samudri Devi (P.W.3) are the victims of the occurrence and they have filed a compromise petition on which the informant and his wife have put their thumb impression and the learned counsels for both the parties have also put their signature and a copy of the compromise petition has also been given to the Additional Public Prosecutor. It further appears that the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504/34 IPC are compoundable and it has been held that the prosecution has not been able to prove offence punishable under Section 307/34 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubts and on this ground the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused 4 under Section 307/34 I.P.C.. On the basis of compromise, accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted under Sections 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal code. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)