IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1221 of 2009 Md.Zahid Khan, son of Late Shahjahan Khan, resident of Mohalla- Kathotar Talab, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Gaya. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Abid Akhtar son of Late Abdul Zabbar resident of Mohalla- Kathotar Talab, Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Gaya. 3. Aqueel Akhtar @ Bholu son of Bakhtiyarul Haque, resident of Noor Compond, Police Station – Civil Lines, District- Gaya. 4. Satendra Singh son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, resident of village- Rasalpur, Police Station- Mufassil, District- Gaya. … Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 13.09.2011 The son of the informant, petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 19th May 2009 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2009/695 of 2008 by which the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 307/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.6.2001, the informant was returning to his house with Raquib Babu, Md. Shakil, driver and some other persons by his Ambassador car after burying his mother-in-law. When the car reached near Karbala, Md. Abid, Md. Akil @ Bholu, Md. Naiyer and Satendra Singh were 2 coming by Tata Sumo from the other direction. The driver of the informant Md. Shakil tried to drive away the car but in the meantime Md. Abid, fired two gunshots by stopping the car and tried to kill the informant. It was alleged that the accused were trying to kill the informant by fire shot but he escaped. On the basis of written report Civil Lines P. S. Case No. 20 of 2001 was instituted. Thereafter, the accused Md. Abid came to the house of the informant and other members of his family and was threatening to compromise the case. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. One of the accused, Md. Naiyer was declared juvenile and his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The case of other accused was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against them for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 307/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act to which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. After trial accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3 It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses out of whom P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 are formal witness who have proved certain documents and writing. It has been found by the learned trial court that out of persons sitting in the car only P. W. 2 has been examined. Informant, Shahjahan Khan was murdered during the trial of the case but others are alive. The driver who was in service of P. W. 2, has also not been examined. P. W. 1, is the own man of the informant, P. W. 2 is the son of the informant and P.W. 3 is the brother-in-law of the informant. The name of P.W. 2 is also not mentioned in the written information by the informant. The evidence of these witnesses has been considered carefully and it has been found that P. Ws. 1 and 2 have also not seen the occurrence. None of the witnesses has named the accused Satendra Singh. All these three witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence has not been found trustworthy and reliable and as such their evidence has not been relied. It has been held that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubts. All the accused have been acquitted 4 after 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.)