IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1255 of 2009 Manjhi Yadav son of late Sumangal Yadav resident of village Nawabganj, P.S. Suryagarha, Distt. Lakhisarai. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Naso yadav son of Late Om Yadav. 3. Khakho Yadav son of Naso Yadav. 4. Shivi Yadav son of Naso Yadav All residents of village Nawabganj, P.S. Suryagarha, Distt. Lakhisarai. .. Opposite Parties. ------ For the petitioner :Mr. Jay Prakash, Adv. For the State :Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 12.09.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2006 by which the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 511 and 323 I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.9.2005 the minor daughter of the petitioner went to the filed for cutting grass. In the meantime, the accused Shibi Yadav tried to rape her after undressing her. On raising alarm, the person working in the field and Raj Kumar, the nephew of the informant came there. Thereafter, accused Shibi Yadav fled away. 2 After getting this information, the informant went to the house of the accused to make complaint, thereafter, the accused Khakho Yadav and Naso Yadav, brother and father of the accused Shibi Yadav abused, assaulted and threatened the informant. On the basis of written information of the informant, Suryagarha P. S. Case No. 251 of 2005 was instituted against all the three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 and 323 I.P.C. 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- opposite party nos. 2 to 4 to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that due to land dispute they have been falsely implicated. After trial, all the accused have been acquitted by the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses in this case including the informant and the victim of the occurrence. The accused-opposite party nos. 2 3 to 4 also examined three witnesses in their defence who have stated that there is a dispute with regard to fall of rain water and flow of water through the kitchen garden of the informant. It appears that the learned trial court has considered the evidence of both the parties. The evidence of prosecution witnesses has been found contradictory and it has been held that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case and accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 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.)