IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1311 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar, son of Raj Kumar Thakur, resident of village- Jata, P.S.-Benibad (Gaighat), District- Muzaffarpur. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sujit Kumar Thakur, son of Vidya Sagar Thakur. 3. Bhupendra Thakur. 4. Ratneshwar Thakur. (Both sons of Ramakant Thakur) 5. Kaushal Kishore Thakur, son of Vidya Sagar Thakur. (All residents of village-Jata, P.S.-Benibad (Gaighat), District-Muzaffarpur) ……Opposite Parties ----------- 2. 20.09.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Muzaffarpur in S.T.No.479/96 by which the accused have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 307/149 of the I.P.C. and the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 4 have only been convicted under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and they have been sentenced to the period undergone. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.07.1994 at about 11.00 A.M., the accused Kaushal Kishore Thakur was ploughing the field of the petitioner which was protested by the informant. Thereafter, the accused Sanjit Kumar Thakur armed with Bhala, Ratnesh Thakur armed with Farsa, Bhuwneshwar Thakur @ Tunni Thakur, Vidya Sagar Thakur and Ramakant Thakur, all armed with Lathi came 2 there and abused the informant. On raising alarm, the neighbour came there. In the meantime, at the instance of Vidya Sagar, Sanjeet Thakur assaulted the informant with Bhala. He fell down. Thereafter, the accused Ratneshwar Thakur gave Farsa blow, which caused injury in his head and the other accused assaulted with Lathi. The informant became unconscious. His life could be saved by some people. The informant went to the Thana with his father and brother where his Fardbeyan was recorded, which was witnessed by his father and brother. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan of the petitioner, Gaighat P.S. Case No.85/1994 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 324, 323, 504, 113 and 307 of the I.P.C. was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. After trial, the impugned order has been passed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. It has been found by the learned trial court that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 of the I.P.C. beyond reasonable 3 doubt. There is no evidence on the record to show that the accused has any intention to kill the informant. There has been no repetition of blow by the Bhala or Farsa. The Doctor has not found any injury caused by Lathi. The evidence of the witnesses has been found contradictory so far the allegation under Section 307/149 is concerned. It has been further found that the informant and the accused are the members of the same family. There is no material on the record to show that they have any criminal antecedent. The accused Sanjit and Ramesh Thakur have been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. Both of them have remained in custody for some time and they have been suffering from mental agony for the last 15 years and therefore, the learned appellate court has sentenced them to the period already undergone in custody. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)