IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.726 of 2006 SURAJ MANJHI, SON OF KISHUN MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOSAI BIGHA, P.S.- AKBARPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF NAWADAH. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI MAHTO SON OF AKLU MAHTO 3. KRISHNA YADAV SON OF DOBHI YADAV 4. RAMJEE YADAV SON OF AKLU MAHTO 5. MANOJ YADAV SON OF RAMJI MAHTO @ RAMJI YADAV 6. BISHUNDEO YADAV SON OF SRI YADAV 7. JUNNA MAHTO @ JUNNU MAHTO SON OF RAMJI MAHTO @ RAMJI YADAV. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-GOSAI BIGHA, P.S.- AKBARPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF NAWADAH. For the petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 10 26.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of Akbarpur P.S. case no. 99 of 1996 which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1999/75 of 2003. By the judgment impugned, the O.Ps herein have been held guilty for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and have been let off under the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act after executing bonds for maintaining piece and good behaviour for a period of 1 ½ years. According to the prosecution case, the informant, on the date of occurrence, was busy in getting his house constructed on his land. This was objected to by the accuseds. There were flashes of hot words between the parties. In the evening, the informant (P.W. 6), her daughter and some other witnesses stayed close to the house under construction. Several persons forming an unlawful assembly started exploding bombs and 2 demolishing the house. This was protested whereafter assaults were inflicted on them causing injuries to P.W.1, 2 and 3. They were accordingly charged under diverse Sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 307/34 IPC. Some of them were also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act whereas some of them were charged under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act. At the trial, 6-7 witnesses were examined. Learned trial court on a consideration of the evidence brought on record has found serious infirmity in the reports placed on record. According to the trial Court, the time of injury indicated therein does not support the prosecution case. Referring to Exts. B and C as also Ext. A, it has been found that petitioner has serious dispute with the accused(s) relating to title of land. Learned trial doubted the status of P.W. 7 as Investigating Officer of the case. It has also taken into account the fact that P.W. 1 never turned up even after service of summons for his examination/cross- examination. Having found the sharp contradictions in the prosecution case, learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove these charges beyond all reasonable doubt framed under Section 427 Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Further, having regard to the injuries sustained by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, it has been held that they at best can be held liable under Section 325 IPC. 3 This Court after having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the materials on record including the impugned judgment, does not find the order impugned to be perfunctory and/or patently illegal meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )