IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1113 of 2009 Arun Kumar Singh S/o Sri Punit Prasad Singh, resident of village- Lodipur Chakwara, P.S. Hajipur Town District Vaishali. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Avinash Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar Singh. Resident of village-Lodipur Chakwara, P.S. Hajipur Town District-Vaishali. ----------- 3 01.08.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 14th of May, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in G.R. Case No. 814 of 2001, Tr. No. 309 of 2008 arising out of Hajipur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2001 by which the accused Opposite Party No. 2 Avinash Kumar, a juvenile has been acquitted. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.03.2001 at about 7. 00 a.m while the informant was going to his cattle shade, the other accused including the petitioner with various armed weapons came to his home and assaulted him. The accused Avinash Kumar and Vijay Kumar Singh entered into the house of the informant and took ornaments, cloths etc. from the box. all worth Rs. 8000/- On the fardbeyan of the petitioner, Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 176 of 2001 has been instituted. After investigation charge sheet was submitted, the accusation was made to the petitioner, charges were framed under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 380 of the I.P.C vide Annexure-2 of the application. After the trial the juvenile accused Avinash Kumar has been acquitted. 2 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of sufficient evidence of P.W. 3 the juvenile accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The APP for the State submits that altogether seven witnesses have been examined but there evidence could not establish the case and the petitioner juvenile has been acquitted by the impugned order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused, the learned trial Court has examined the evidence of P.W. 1 Sunil Kumar who is an eye witness of the occurrence. As it appears from the examination he has not specifically alleged any kind of overt act against the accused Opposite Party Nos. 2. P.W. 2 and P.W 3 have also not named the Opposite Party No. 2 even as the member of the accused party. P.W 4, Shankar Kumar returning to the house of Arun Kumar Singh the accused Avinash Kumar entered into the house of Arun Kumar and committed theft of cloths, and ornaments and fled away, but this witness has not stated this fact before the Investigating Officer. P.W. 5, Arun Kumar Singh, is the informant and petitioner of this case as well as victim of the occurrence. According to him, Avinash Kumar was also the member of the accused party and caused hurt by means of lathi to him though there had not been any bleeding from lathi injury but red and black marks with swellings had occurred on the place of the injury i.e. back, waist, arms and 3 knee but the injury report does not corroborate his evidence. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W 7 is the Doctor, who stated that bleeding injury can be caused by hard and blunt substance. After considering all these materials, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove charges against the accused Opposite Party No. 2 beyond reasonable doubts. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. In the result this revision application is dismissed Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)