IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1284 of 2009 Mukesh Kumar Gupta, son of Bhuwneshwar Prasad Sah, resident of village-Kursela, P.S.-Kursela, District- Patna. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Satyendra Kumar Singh, son of Kailash Singh. 3. Punpun Singh, son of Late Janki Singh. 4. Mantu Singh, son of Surendra Singh. 5. Pintu Singh, son of Surendra Singh. 6. Surendra Singh, son of Late Dadhu Singh. (O.P.Nos. 2 to 6 are resident of village-Kursela, P.S.- Kursela, District- Katihar). 7. Manoj Kumar, son of Nand Kumar Singh, resident of village-Balthi Maheshpur, P.S.-Kursela, District- Katihar. ……….Opposite Parties ----------- 2. 14.09.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 7.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.464/09 arising out of Kursela P.S. Case No.59/08 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.07.1988, all the accused (opposite party nos. 2 to 7) with other two-three unknown persons entered into the hotel of the informant by breaking the thatched fencing. The accused Satyendra Kumar Singh asked other to kill the informant and he gave a Chhura blow to the informant 2 which was blocked and it struck in the hand. Mantu Singh assaulted his son and dashed him on the ground. Surendra Singh and Manoj Singh took Rs.1500/-from cash of his hotel and fled away. In the meantime, the police came there and wanted to pacify the matter and in this connection, the policemen have sustained injury. Further it is alleged that the younger brother of Mantu Singh assaulted the informant. While the informant was going to the Thana in injured condition, he met Vijay Yadav of village-Kursela on the road and he told about the occurrence to him. Vijay Yadav wrote a written information, which was signed by the informant. The cause of the occurrence is enmity and the Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh was always threatening the informant to kill him and also threatened to destroy the hotel. On the basis of written information of the informant, Kursela P.S. Case No.59/08 was instituted against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused. After trial, the accused have been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt by the impugned order. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. Out of them, P.W.I, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have stated that they do not know about the occurrence and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 has supported the prosecution case and according to him, the occurrence of assault occurred at Kursela Chowk, but according to the written report, the occurrence has taken place at the hotel of the informant and the said evidence has been found contradictory. He did not say as to who had assaulted the informant with knife or dagger. His evidence has not been found reliable. P.W.9 is the first I.O. of this case and he has not recorded the statement of any witness. P.W.7 is the son of the informant and P.W.8 is the informant. The evidence of P.W.10, I.O. of this case has been found by the learned trial court that the informant and his son had sustained injury on his left hand, but the doctor mentioned in his injury report a scratch over left forearm and this type of injury cannot be sustained through the dagger. The doctor did not mention any complain regarding pain over 4 the body of the informant. I.O. has also clarifies that informant is also an interested witness in giving forwarding of injury. It has also come to the notice that Title Eviction Suit No.8/98 (Exhibit A) was filed by the accused Doctor Satayendra Kumar Singh for eviction of the informant on 6.04.1998 and after three months, this false case has been instituted against the Doctor Sayendra Kumar Singh and other accused on 6.07.1998. There is enmity between both the parties from the beginning. The evidence of the prosecution has not been believed as the evidence has been found contradictory and it does not inspire confidence. The learned trial court has found that the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and they have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)