IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1358 of 2007 MD. SAJJAD SON OF ABDUL SAMID KHAN RESIDENT PAITHAN CHOWK P.S. JAMUI DISTRICT JAMUI …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANGULU MIAN SON OF ALI MOHAMMAD MIAN 3. MD. SAFFARUDDIN MAIN SON OF ALI MOHAMMAD MIAN 4. SAHIB MIAN SON OF MD. MUSSAIN MIAN 5. MD. KALIM MIAN SON OF PARO MIAN, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILALGE PAITHAN CHOWK, JAMUI, P.S. JAMUI, DISTRICT JAMUI. …ACCUSED/OPP.PARTIES For the Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Thakur & :Mr.S.P.Parasay, Advocates For opposite party : Mr. Amar Prakash For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 04. 12.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the informant of the FIR (Annexure-1) which gave rise to Sessions Trial No.448/95 of the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Jamui. Learned trial court on a consideration of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as also the defence acquitted the accused persons (o.p.nos.2 to 5 herein) of the charger(s) punishable under diverse sections of the Penal Code including section 307 IPC which was lodged in respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 26.03.1994. In all, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. With regard to a piece of land, the occurrence appears to have taken place. There is already another proceeding pending between the parties. Learned trial court found that P.Ws.6 and 7 who were cited and produced as the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case. They were thus declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. According 2 to the informant (P.W.5), the occurrence had taken place at about 5.30 P.M. His father (P.W.3) deposed to the effect that the occurrence had taken place at 7.30.P.M. In the light of two versions with respect to the time of occurrence, learned trial court has referred to the evidence of the doctor(P.W.4) who is said to have examined the injured(s) of their injuries at 7.20.P.M. Learned trial court on a consideration of the entire matter, has concluded as under in paragraph 23 of the judgment: “23. Keeping in view the enmity between the parties non support of the prosecution case by the independent witnesses, support of prosecution case by interested and inimical witness only major contradictions on the point of nature of assault, manner of assault time of occurrence and the view of the Dr. that the injuries may be caused by fall, self inflicted and non examination of the I.O., I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegation against the accused persons, beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and doubt has been created over the prosecution case and it is well settled principle that the benefit of doubts always goes to the defence and not to the prosecution.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that view taken by the court below is palpably absurd and/or perfunctory meriting any interference by this Court. The application lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )