IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1493 of 2009 Ganesh Singh, son of Sri Hari Singh, resident of village-Lakshman Bigha, P.S.-Indrapuri, District- Rohtas. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Arun Kumar Singh, son of Piya Ranjan Singh. 3. Stay Narayan Singh, son of Late Ram Sharan Singh. 4. Kanhai Singh, son of Hari Charan Singh. 5. Ganga Singh, son of Hari Charan Singh. 6. Sagar Singh, son of Late Khedan Singh 7. Suraj Deo Singh, son of Ganga Singh. 8. Awadhesh Singh, son of Mohan Singh. 9. Lok Nath Singh, son of Stay Narayan Singh. 10. Deepak Singh, son of Ram Sagar Singh. 11. Dukhi Singh, son of Jagdama Singh. 12. Mithlesh Singh, son of Late Bishwanath Singh. 13. Uma Nath Singh, son of late Sita Ram Singh. …Opposite Parties. (All residents of village- Lakshman Bigha, P.S.-Indrapuri, District- Rohtas). ----------- 2. 03.11.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 8.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd class, Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R. No.526/2005, Trial No.263/2009 arising out of Indrapuri (Dehri) P.S. Case No.84/2005 by which all the accused opposite parties have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.04.2005 at about 4.00 P.M., the informant and his brother were in the school namely Vidya Niketan Public School, all the accused armed with various weapons entered into the school with 2 intention to kill the informant and his brother. It has also been alleged that the accused persons also looted Rs.1500/- from the informant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken under Sections 143 and 506 of the I.P.C. After the trial, all the accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears that six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to various land disputes. It further appears that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and after considering the evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted all the by giving them the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)