IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.543 of 2008 TOUFI YADAV @ TOUFILAL YADAV .PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. INDRA NARAIN YADAV, SON OF SHAUKHI YADAV 3. DEV NATH YADAV, SON OF SUKHU YADAV 4. DURYODHAN YADAV, SON OF SUKHDEV YADAV 5. JAI PRAKASH YADAV SON OF SURYODHAN YADAV 6. RADHE YADAV SON OF BASUDEV YADAV 7. GAORI SHANKAR YADAV SON OF KASHI YADAV 8. ASHOK YADAV SON OF BANARASA YADAV 9. MADHUSADAN YADAV, SON OF ANURUDH YADAV 10. BISHWANATH YADAV SON OF SHIV SHANKAR YADAV 11. CHITRTA MOHAN YADAV SON OF TANUK YADAV 12. KUSHESHWAR YADAV, SON OF LUCKY YADAV 13. DEEP NATH GIRI SON OF LAXMI YADAV 14. CHALITTAR YADAV SON OF SAURVI YADAV 15. DHANRAJ YADAV SON OF GOKHUL YADAV 16. NARENDRA YADAV SON OF MAHAVEER YADAV 17. RAJENDRA YADAV SON OF BAHADUR YADAV 18. HEM SHANKAR YADAV SON OF KASHI YADAV, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GADHAWAN P.S. BASOPATTI, MADHUBANI. OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the petitioner :Mr.Murari Narain Choudhary For the State :Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ---- 03. 04.08.2010 Heard the parties. The informant, the maker of the FIR which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 126/89/3/04 is the petitioner in this case. He assails the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2008, passed in the aforesaid sessions trial by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Madhubani, whereby the accuseds facing trial (o.p.nos.2 to 18 herein) were acquitted of the charge(s). It appears from the judgment that only three witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case. One of the injureds in the alleged occurrence has not been produced for examination. The doctor and the investigating officer of the case have - 2 - also not been examined. Learned trial court has found that consistent case of the prosecution is that after assault the injureds had gone to Basopatti Hospital for their treatment. The injury reports have not been brought on record. Learned trial court has also found that the informant of this case (P.W.3) has himself contradicted his statement. This is what learned trial court has held in paragraph 12 of its judgment. “12. As the informant himself has contradicted his own version on point of injury and one of the injured has not been examined. Further the doctor concerned who allegedly examine the injuries or the informant and other injured persons has not been examined without assigning any reason. Further as per prosecution allegation the cause of occurrence is land dispute and the said land has already been sold by the father of the informant to the accused persons clearly shows that actually there was no land dispute rather the informant himself has created dispute regarding the land and as such the genesis of the case has not been established by the prosecution.” In the backdrop of these facts/evidence(s) emanating from records, the order of acquittal has been recorded. This Court does not find any patent illegality in consideration/evaluation of the evidence on record meriting any interference. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )