IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1456 of 2009 Sukho Devi, wife of late Mahendra Baitha, resident of village- Sangram Phandah, P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Rampukar Baitha, son of late Fekan Baitha. 3. Vijay Baitha, son of Rampukar Baitha. 4. Prem Kumar Baitha, son of Rampukar Baitha. 5. Sajani Devi, wife of Rampukar Baitha. (All are residents of village-Sangram Phandah, P.S.-Riga, District- Sitamarhi) …..Opposite Parties ----------- 3. 21.11.2011 The wife of the informant has preferred this revision application against the order dated 13.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Sitamarhi in G.R. No.1610/2002, Trial No.447/2007 arising out of Riga P.S. Case No.112/2002 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 447, 323, 341 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the informant, the husband of the petitioner died. As such, this application has been filed by his wife. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.04.2002 at about 11.00 A.M., the informant Mahendra Baitha was sitting at his Darwaja. His brother Rampukar Baitha with his sons Vijay Baitha and Prem Baitha and his wife started 2 using filthy language against the informant and caught hold of him. The accused Rampukar Baitha told him that they would kill him as the informant has broken the boundary wall. Thereafter, Vijay Baitha and Prem Baitha assaulted the informant with Lathi and all the accused dashed him on the road and assaulted him. They also took out Rs.375/- from his pocket. Jeetu Baitha and Kamal Baitha came to the place of occurrence and the accused were also beaten by them. Panchayati was held, but the accused did not abide by the Panchayati, which is the cause of delay in lodging the F.I.R. On the fardbeyan of the informant, Riga P.S. Case No.112/2002 was registered against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The substance of the accusation was explained under Sections 347, 341, 323 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the accused have been acquitted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It appears that both the parties have led their evidence. The learned trial court has considered the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced on behalf of 3 the parties and has come to the conclusion that the statement of the witnesses are contradictory and their evidence has not been found to be trustworthy and all the witnesses are interested except P.W.1, who is an independent witness and he has been declared hostile. There is land dispute between both the parties. The accused persons have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)