IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.904 of 2009 Nandan Das son of Late Pancham Das, resident of village Purani Bhirha, P. S. Rosera, District- Samastipur. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mahendra Yadav 3. Tanuk Yadav Both sons of late Baldeo Yadav. 4. Budhan Yadav son of Mahendra Yadav. 5. Dasharath Yadav son of Dhaneshar Yadav. 6. Sikandar yadav son of Bholi Yadav. 7. Ganeshi Yadav son of Dhaneshar Yadav. 8. Kusheshwar Yadav son of late Tilkeshwar Yadav. O.Ps. no. 2 to 8 are resident of village Purani Bhirha, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur. … Opposite parties. ------ 5. 03.08.2011 The petitioner, son of the informant, late Pancham Das has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 9.1.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1999/ 61 of 2003 by which the accused, opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.1.1996 at about 11.30 a.m. the accused and others came to the house of the informant, Pancham Das and set fire in the dwelling house causing destruction of six straw-thatched dwelling houses and other 2 household goods. They also assaulted the informant, his son and other family members. The informant has claimed to identify nine persons among the miscreants who were armed with deadly weapons and tried to vacate the land in dispute measuring 1 kathas, 17 dhurs on which six huts were constructed as dwelling houses. The said land, belonging to one Ram Bharose Thakur, had been in possession of the informant since long. One culprit, Goli Yadav in collusion with his four brothers and nephew Rusheshwar Yadav got the said land executed by one Shiv Deo Yadav. It has been further alleged that after setting the house on fire all the accused escaped from the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is that about 25 days ago the culprits managed to get the said land wrongfully executed and for the purpose to maintain their unlawful possession over the land in dispute assaulted the informant and the members of his family and set the entire house on fire. After getting information S. I. of Rosera Police Station went to the place of occurrence at 12.30 P.M. on 14.1.1996 and recorded the fard beyan of Pancham Das and 3 obtained his LTI on the same. Thereafter Rosera P. S. Case No. 10 of 1996 was registered against altogether nine named persons. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against nine accused. During trial accused Goli Yadav and Dhaneshwar Yadav died. After trial, all the remaining accused have been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 1 to 4 on the ground that they are own brothers as such they are interested witnesses. Other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. Their evidence is consistent as such the learned trial court should not have discarded their evidence. Leaned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that it appears that the prosecution has examined eight witnesses in all, out of them P.W. 1, 2, 3, and 6 are the sons of informant. P.W. 7, Chinta Devi, is daughter-in- law of the informant. P. W. 8, Rudal Das and P. W. 4 Rudal Das is certainly one man who has been examined twice due to mistake. P. W. 5, Guneshwar Ram is a formal witness. Not a single 4 independent witness has been examined in this case. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of contradictions and their evidence has rightly been discarded by the learned trial court and no interference in the impugned order is required by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. P. P. for the State and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is admitted position that there is enmity between the prosecution party and the accused. The evidence of interested witnesses is not fit to be discarded but their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully. It appears that the learned trial court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who are interested. Learned trial court has found that the evidence of P. W. 1, Sheo Nandan Das, P. W.2, Nandan Das, P. W. 3, Anandi Das and P. W. 4 Rudal Das is full of contradictions. P. W. 6, Bandan Das has admitted that at the time of occurrence he had a Khaparapose house in which there were four rooms. There were four Khaparapose houses at separate places belonging to all the four brothers. He has further stated that all these 5 four khaparapose houses and two thatched houses were burnt, whereas P. W. 7, Chinta Devi, the wife of Bandan Das, has stated that all the houses were made of straw out of which four were used as dwelling house and two as cattle house. P. W. 3, Anandi Das has stated that there were five dwelling houses and one was cattle house, whereas, the FIR is silent on this point. It appears that the learned trial court has scrutinized likewise the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. Not a single independent witness has been examined in support of the prosecution case. Investigating Officer of this case has also not been examined. Learned trial court has found that all the witnesses are interested and partisan and their evidence did not inspire confidence as such no reliance can be made on their evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)