IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1220 of 2007 ABDUL GAFOOR S/O LATE HAJI NIYAMSULLAH R/O VILL. LAHSA, (BANGALI TOLA) P.S. MANSAHI, DIST. KATIHAR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. RANJAN S/O LATE HAJI NEYAMULLAH 3. ABDUL JABBAR S/O IMAZUDDIN 4. ABDUL TAWAB S/O HAJI ANISUR RAHMAN 5. ABDUL TALEB S/O MD. IBRAHIM 6. MD. FIRAZUL @ MAZRUL HAQUE S/O MD. SULTAN 7. NAZRUL HAQUE S/O MD.SULTAN 8. NURUL HAQUE S/O MD. IBRAHIM 9. MD. SULTAN S/O LATE AMUDDIN 10. MD. JAMSHED S/O LATE ABUL HUSSAIN 11. MD. JALALUDDIN S/O LATE HAJI RAHMAN 12. MD. ALAUDDIN S/O LATE HAJI RAHMAN 13. ABDUL HAMAN S/O LATE SOYAB ALI 14. ABDUL HAQUE S/O LATE SOYAB ALI 15. ]MD. IBRAHIM S/O LATE SOYAB ALI ALL R/O VILL. LAHSA ( BANGALI TOLA) P.S. MANSAHI, DIST. KATIHAR. ---OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 04. 30.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the igniter of the present criminal proceeding which gave rise to Sessions Trial no. 207 of 2004 of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Katihar. He is aggrieved by that part of the judgment whereby the accuseds/ opposite party nos. 2 to 15 herein have been acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 307/149 and 379 of the Penal Code. Learned trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record found and held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) punishable against the accused persons under Section 325/149 of the Penal 2 Code only. According to the prosecution case lodged by the present petitioner/informant (PW-9) when he was going on a cycle, all the accused persons arrived near him and thereafter abused and assaulted. It is the prosecution case that one of the accused caught hold of him and abused and also assaulted. Remaining accused persons were seen armed with iron rod, ‘bhala’, ‘farsa’. It is the prosecution case that they also assaulted the petitioner/informant as well as his son (PW.6). It is also the prosecution case that some of the accused persons opened firing from country made pistol. At the trial 13 prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s). The doctor (PW.13) did not find any fire arm injury on the person of the informant (PW-9) and his son (PW-6). One injury on the person of the informant was found to be grievous as the x-ray relating to the said injury displayed fracture on lower hand of left elbow. Learned trial court in the back ground of these facts emanating from the record came to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) punishable under Sections 379 as well as 307/149 of the Penal Code. The conclusion of the trial Court can be seen from paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of the impugned judgment. On a consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and after perusal of the materials on record including the impugned judgment, this Court is satisfied that no patent illegality as such has been committed in 3 consideration/evaluation of the materials on record by learned trial Court meriting any interference. The application is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)