IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.932 of 2008 RAM JANAM YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 16.4.2009 The present revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 28th May,2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 9th, Patna in Sessions Trial No.927 of 1987 by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the O.Ps. No.2 to 8 under sections 323,324,307 and 149 of the I.P.C. All the accused persons were charged under sections 307/ 149 of I.P.C.,whereas O.P. No.2, Ram Naresh Rai was further charged under section 324 of the I.P.C. and the remaining O.Ps.No.3 to 8 were charged under section 323 of I.P.C. The informant Dipa Rai ( now dead) alleged that (1) while he was making his khalihan with the help of Shiv Janam Rai, P.W.1, Ram Janam Rai, P.W.3, Krishna Murari and Deo Lal Yadav ( now dead), accused persons started widening the ditch. On protest they went home and returned armed with lathi, garasa and fasuli. (2) The accused Balkan Rai (now dead) assaulted him by lathi causing injury on his left arm. Accused Naresh Rai inflicted fasuli blow which caused injury near both eyes. The other accused persons assaulted them with lathi and garasa. On halla Ram Prit Rai, Sadhu Rai( both not examined) and Girdhar Yadav, P.W.2, came. (3) The injured were moved to Punpun Nursing Home where they treated. The prosecution only examined three witness, namely, P.W.1, Shiv Janam Rai, P.W.2, Girdhar Yadav and P.W.3, Ram 2 Janam Yadav who claimed to be eye witnesses. The trial court found that the evidence of the witnesses are at variance with each other on manner of the occurrence. The trial court noticed that the witnesses belong to the same family and the evidence is at variance with prosecution case. P.W.3 even admitted that there is counter case filed by the family member of the accused persons. In this case the doctor has not been examined nor the injury report has been exhibited . Further more neither the fardbeyan nor the formal F.I.R. has been brought on record and proved. The I.O. too has not been examined. From perusal of the record I do not find any manifest illegality in the Judgment of the trial court. As such, this revision application against acquittal is dismissed. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)