IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1140 of 2009 Achitanand Jha, son of Late Yaduwanshi Jha, resident of village-Mau Bihat, P.S.-Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Lochan Jha, son of Ram Nath Jha. 3. Sheela Nath Jha, son of Ram Nath Jha. 4. Amar Nath Jha, son of Ram Nath Jha. 5. Rama Nath Jha, son of Late Jeevnath Jha (All are residents of village-Mau Bihat, P.S.-Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga) ----------- 2. 18.08.2011 The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 8.06.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.212/98 by which the accused opposite party has been acquitted under Sections 504, 143, 447 and 337 of the I.P.C. and the accused Shambhu Nath Jha and Shila Nath Jha have been acquitted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and accused Lochan Jha has been acquitted under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The accused Ram Nath Jha, Amar Nath Jha and Lochan Jha have been convicted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.07.1997 at about 10.00 A.M., the informant was 2 engaged in repairing of the house and labourers were engaged to install KHUTA thereon. In the meantime, accused Lochan Jha entered in the courtyard and used filthy words and protested against the installation of KHUTA having this claim that this land belongs to him. Thereafter, Amar Nath Jha armed with Garansha, Shambhu Nath Jha, Sheela Nath Jha, Rama Nath Jha armed with brick stones reached there. Subsequently, Rama Nath Jha gave order to kill him. Soon thereafter Lochan Jha took Garasha from the hand of Amar Nath Jha and inflicted on the head of informant by which he sustained injury and subsequently he became unconscious. On Hulla, his cousin Manohar Jha reached there and the named accused persons assaulted him by hit of brick stone. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan, Manigachhi P.S. Case No.90/1997 dated 22.01.1997 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 447, 323, 324, 337, 307 and 504 of the I.P.C. was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the court of sessions. After trial, the order has been passed by the learned trial court as aforesaid. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned 3 counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.B.Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. After hearing learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that no perverse findings have been made by the learned trial court. Learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution minutely. P.W.4 Achita Nand Jha is the informant as well as the victim of the occurrence. It appears that neither the I.O. nor the doctor has been examined in this case. The injuries are simple in nature. There has been land dispute between both the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)