IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.112 of 2008 Shivji Singh son of Late Gopal Singh, resident of village- Mathurapur, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur. …. Informant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Tulsi Rai son of Sri Bramhdeo Rai resident of village- Dhengpur, P.S. Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur. .. (Accused)- Opposite Party. 2. The State of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 02.09.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 572 of 2002 by which the accused Tulsi Rai, opposite party no. 1 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 384, 307/149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the firm of the informant-petitioner was allotted work of construction of Dewaria- Jafarpur- Ambara Road in the district of Muzaffarpur. While the work was in progress, the accused Tulsi Rai started demanding Rs.50,000/- . On 11.2.2001 while the work was going on accused Tulsi Rai along with Pappu Singh, Binod Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ashok Singh, 2 Birendra Singh, Arun Rai, Pachu Rai and Chandrika Rai came there armed with firearms and explosive substance. Tulsi Rai told the petitioner to pay Rangdari of Rs.50,000/- failing which the construction work will not proceed. Tulsi Rai threw ten drums of Coaltar on the road and set it on fire and fired from his gun which hit one of the workers of the petitioner. Thereafter,accused Pappu Singh also fired which hit the informant and his brother. All the accused persons indiscriminately fired and thereafter left the place of occurrence by threatening the informant. On the basis of written information of the informant- petitioner, Paroo P. S. Case No. 22 of 2001 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet No. 63 of 2002 was submitted against the accused Tulsi Rai showing investigation pending against the remaining accused persons of the FIR. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide Sessions Trial No. 572 of 2002. Charge was framed against the accused. After trial the accused opposite party no. 1 has been acquitted. The defence of the accused is total 3 denial in participation of the occurrence. It has been submitted that Tulsi Rai has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact he was admitted in the Clinic of Dr. Birendra Kishore in Juran Chapra which has been supported by the I. O. of this case. During investigation I. O. got information that Tulsi Rai was in an unconscious condition and was at the clinic of Dr. Birendra Kishore where his treatment was going on due to injury caused to him by bullet. In this petition it has been submitted that from the evidence of P. Ws. 8 to 12 it is clear that all the witness have supported the prosecution case beyond doubt but the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have not correctly been considered by the learned trial court. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and found them not trustworthy as such their evidence has not been relied upon. No interference by this Court is required. It appears from the impugned order that the prosecution has examined altogether 14 4 witnesses out of them P. Ws. 1 to 7 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and they have stated that they do not know about the alleged occurrence whereas they are charge- sheeted witnesses in this cases. It further appears that P.W. 12, Shivji Singh is the informant in this case and he has stated that his construction work was going on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.2.2001. The accused Tulsi Rai along with others came there and demanded Randari. Altercation took place and the accused Pappu Singh ordered to fire, upon which the accused Tulsi Rai fired. He sided and the bullet hit on the person of Dilip Mahto. He also stated that accessed persons turned down the drums of coal tar and Tulsi Rai lit fire on it. He has also stated that his brother Gaya Singh had died before one year and the injured Dilip Mahto was threatened by the men of Tulsi Rai, hence he left the village and went away. He has stated that the police brought three injured persons including himself for medical treatment at Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of occurrence Tulsi Rai was not present. Injured Dilip Mahto, the alleged worker of the 5 informant who had received firearm injury has not been examined in this case. It also appears that the learned trial Court has dealt with and considered the evidence of other prosecution witnesses also. It also appears from the evidence of P.W. 14, I. O. of this case that the evidence of the prosecution witness are full of contradictions regarding appearance and participation in the occurrence by the accused Tulsi Rai. After Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge against the accused Tulsi Rai and his participation and complicity in the occurrence cannot be believed. The evidence of Ext. A. and B clearly indicates that no man in the name of Dilip Mahto of village Kuriya P.S. Pipra, Distt. East Champaran exist and he is alleged to have injured of the occurrence and accordingly the accused opposite party no. 1 has been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any 6 ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, this application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)