IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1039 of 2009 Sukan Rai son of Bilat Rai, Resident of village-Bilalpur, Police Station-Town(Industrial Area), District-Vaishali. Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Tula Rai son of Autar Rai, resident of village-Bilalpur, P.S. Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali. 3. Ram Dayal Rai son of Tula Rai, resident of village-Bilalpur P.S. Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali. 4. Ravi Rai son of Tula Rai, resident of village-Bilalpur, P.S. Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali. ----------- 3 22.07.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur in sessions Trial No. 217 of 2008 arising out of Hajipur Sadar (Industrial Area) Police Station Case No. 377 of 2003, G.R. Case No. 2232 of 2003, under Section 436/34 by which all the accused have been acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Section 436/34 IPC. The prosecution case as per fardbeyan is that on the date of occurrence the informant-petitioner heard Hulla at 9 a.m that his house is set on fire, he along with his family members came there and found that the food grains kept in a room got burnt. It has been alleged that he suspected the accused Ram Dayal Roy to have set his house on fire. Ram Dayal Roy had given him threatening one month prior to the occurrence that he would kill the informant and would set his house on fire. On the basis of the allegation an F.I.R was instituted vide Hajipur Sadar (Industrial Area) P.S Case No. 377 of 2003. After investigation the police submitted final form as mistake of fact. The informant 2 filed complaint petition. After enquiry a prima facie case was found against the accused for his offence punishable under Sections 436 and 427 IPC vide order dated 01.03.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session. Thereafter the charge was framed against the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 436/34 IPC vide order dated 13.07.2008. During trial three witnesses were examined and after trial the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence of eye witnesses in a proper manner. He failed to appreciate that the complainant and other witnesses examined during the trial have supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the evidence of prosecution witness is full of contradictions. As such their evidence have rightly been not relied upon by the learned trial court. No interference in the impugned order is required by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and other material of the case it appears that the police case was filed, after investigation, the case was found a mistake of fact. Thereafter, a complaint was filed. During trial the learned Sessions Judge has carefully considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the informant who has changed 3 his version from time to time. According to P.W. 3 who is the informant of this case has given the fard beyan before the police after eight days of the occurrence in which it has been stated that he has only suspected that the occurrence was made by the accused, but in his deposition he has given his statement as an eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence(depositions) of other witnesses are full of contradictions. It has also been found that the accused and the informant are cousin brother and there has been enmity between both the parties. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)