IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1002 of 2009 Murali Mahto son of late Ramkripal Mahto resident of village Mahammadpur Sakara, p.S. Bibhutipur District Samastipur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Anita Devi wife of Umesh Mahto 3. Krishnadeo Mahto son of late Darogi Mahto 4. Dhaneshwar Mahto son of late Darogi Mahto 5. Satyanarayan Mahto son of Bhagwan Mahto 6. Bhgwan Mahto son of Darogi Mahto All resident of village Mohammadpur Sakara P.S. Bibhutipur District Samastipur. … Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 5.07.2011 This revision application is directed against the order dated 1.4.2009 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Roshra in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 1992 by which the accused had been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 I.P.C. and they have been released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Heard Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner was the informant. According to Fardbeyan which was lodged by the informant for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307 I.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted 2 against accused- opposite parties. Charges were also framed under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/149 I.P.C. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has not considered properly the evidence of prosecution witness who have stated that injury was caused by sharp cutting weapons, in spite of that the learned trial court has not convicted the accused under Section 307 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution has not been able to substantiate his case for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and all the injury have been found to be simple in nature and there is no repetition of blow. She has further submitted that there was counter case for the same occurrence and in the counter case also the informant and others have been convicted and they have been released under the Probation of Offenders Act. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that prosecution has examined six witnesses. Witness nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have stated that they are also injured in the occurrence. The doctor has also found their injury. It 3 appears that these witnesses have accepted that there is enmity between both the parties. When the witness no. 5, informant (petitioner) has also accepted the enmity between both the parties, it does not appear that accused had intention to kill as such learned trial court has not found the accused guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. but accused have been found guilty under Sections 323, 324 and 341 I.P.C. and considering the facts and circumstances that there is enmity between both the parties and there is occurrence of assault at the instance of both the parties, learned trial court has released the accused under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This cri. revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)