IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1316 of 2009 Ram Jhari Devi, W/o Mahadev Kuwar, resident of village- Kolso Motnaje, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar ….. Petitioner Versus 01. State Of Bihar 02. Pramod Singh, S/o Shresth Singh @ Sirith Singh, R/o village Kolso Motnaje, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar 03. Vishwanath Singh, S/o Tuntun Singh, R/o Village Kolso Motnaje, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar ….. Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mrs. Madhu Bala Verma, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, Advocate ---------------------------------- 04. 04.11.2011 The informant petitioner has preferred this Revision Application against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2003/93 of 2005 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5.8.2002 the informant had gone to collect green grass to Bagmati River Ditch where Amod Singh (now dead), Nakeshwar Singh, Sonu Singh and Dhiraj Singh came there and tried to outrage her modesty. She raised alarm and the accused fled away. It has been further alleged that thereafter the informant went to her house and narrated the entire occurrence to her husband Mahadev Kuwar (PW.8). When husband was ready to go to the Police Station 2 for lodging a case against the accused at about 4:30 P.M., on the same day Ram Sirith Singh, Amod Singh (both dead), Vishwanath Singh and Shanti Devi came towards her door and requested to solve the matter through panchayati, but her husband was not ready. Thereafter, at the instance of Sirith Singh his son Amod Singh shot fire which caused injury to Mahadev Kuwar and he fell down. Pramod Singh took the firearm from Amod Singh and Vishwanath Singh and Shanti Devi fled away. In the meantime several villagers assembled there, they caught Sirith Singh and Amod Singh and confined in the house of Mahadev Kuwar and locked the main door and, thereafter, she went to hospital for treatment of her husband. On the basis of the Fardbeyan Taryani P.S. Case No. 87 of 2002 was registered under Section 307/34, 354 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act against the 7 accused persons. After investigation Charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After the trial, the accused have been acquitted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that out of 7 accused persons Ram Shresth 3 Singh @ Ram Sirith Singh and Amod Singh died. According to P.W.8 Mahadev Kuwar who was the injured and the victim of the occurrence Amod Singh shot fire at him causing injury and he became senseless. He has not stated that the villagers assembled at his door, caught Amod Singh and Sirith Singh and locked both of them in his house. Sirith Singh and Amod Singh have already died as noticed earlier. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully and has found that the Amod Singh, who was responsible for causing injury to the victim Mahadev Kuwar P.W.-8, already died. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the other accused. It has been found that there was scuffle between the villagers and Mahadev Kuwar and killed Amod Singh on the date of occurrence and due to scuffle in between the villagers Mahadev Kuwar sustained injury on his Cheek on the date and time of occurrence which has been explained by the prosecution in S.Tr. No. 868 of 2005 (counter case) and only to save his skin from the counter-case Mahadev Kuwar filed a false case 4 through his wife Ram Jhari Devi, who has been examined as Court witness No.1 and on going through Exhibit A and A/1 both the deceased sustained several injury on their person on the date of occurrence. After considering all these facts, the learned Trial Court has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused and both the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Court below. This Criminal Revision is dismissed. P.K. (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)