IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.680 of 2008 1. AANAND BIHARI SINGH S/O LATE RUPA SINGH R/O VILL- KEDARGANJ, P.S. DHANSOI, DIST. BUXAR. --PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHARMENDRA SINGH, S/O SRI BHAGWAN SINGH 3. MANIKANT SINGH S/O SHIV PRASAD SINGH 4. JAG NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE RAM EKBAL SINGH 5. LALBABU SINGH S/O HARI SINGH 6. SRI BHAGWAN SINGH S/O VANSHROPAN SINGH 7. SUMAN SINGH S/O SHIVPRASAD SINGH 8. ASHOK SINGH S/O HARI SINGH 9. SRI NIWAS SINGH S/O HARI SINGH ALL R/O VILL-KEDARGANJ, P.S. DHANSOI, DIST. BUXAR. --- OPP.PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Kr. Ojha, Advocate. For the O.Ps : None For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ----------- 03 12.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is the informant of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial no. 89 of 2005 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. III, Buxar. By the judgment and order impugned dated 22nd April, 2008, learned trial Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge(s) punishable under Sections 307/149 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per prosecution case, the accuseds had requested the informant (PW4) to lend his tractor for ploughing the field. The same was denied by him on the plea that the tractor was required by him for thrashing the grains. This enraged the accused. They returned back. After some time accused persons reached at 2 the door of the informant and assaulted him by means of lathi, danda and slaps. When the son of the informant (PW5) tried to intervene he was also thrashed and an attempt was made to injure his eyes. At the trial, altogether 08 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned trial Court, on an evaluation of the witnesses, has come to the conclusion that accuseds were outnumbering the prosecution side. They were armed with lethal/deadly weapons. None of the weapons was used in the crime. Referring to the evidence of the doctor (PW8), it has been found that the injuries were superficial/simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Those injuries were found on the non vital parts. Learned trial Court has also found that the evidence was at variance, so far as the allegation/charge under Section 379 is concerned. Resultantly learned trial Court has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) under Sections 323/149 and 341 of the Penal Code beyond shadow of doubts. They have been, thus, held guilty under those Sections. Having found that they were the first convicts and belong to one family and some of them were fairly young in age, and the dispute had arisen over trivial matter, learned trial Court has allowed them the privilege of Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). They were directed to be released in terms of Section 3 of the Act. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials on record. Learned 3 counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the view taken by learned trial Court is tenuous and/or perfunctory. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)