IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1331 of 2009 Ashok Kumar Tanti son of Sri Vishwanath Tanti, resident of village- Walidad, P.S.- Mehandia, District- Arwal. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Guddu Miyan son of Azim Miyan @ Aziz Miyan @ Bale Miyan. 3. Azim Miyan @ Aziz Miyan @ Bale Miyan son of Late Md. Mahboob Mian 4. Nayeem Miyan son of Azim Miyan @ Aziz Miyan @ Bale Miyan. 5. Amin Miyan son of Azim Miyan @ Aziz Miyan @ Bale Miyan 6. Ibrar Miyan son of Md. Ismail Miyan All are the resident of village- Walidad, P.S. Mehandia, District- Arwal. 7. Jafrul Qadri son of Md. Illayas, resident of village- Bela Banzhar, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Aurangabad. .. Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 28.09.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 16th May 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2005 by which the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted for the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.11.2001 at about 7 pm there was noise of altercation in the house of Azim Mian @ Bela Mian. The informant and others went to the house of Azim Mian. After hearing the voice 2 of cry of his brother Om Prakash Tanti, informant entered into the courtyard of Azim Mian and saw that in the eight feet depth tank his brother was lying and he was taken out with the help of other persons in the injured and unconscious stage. Injured was taken to Arwal hospital and thereafter to PMCH, Patna. It has been alleged that Azim Mian with a view to kill his brother Om Prakash Tanti assaulted him with stones on his head and made him seriously injured. On the basis of Fard beyan of the petitioner Arwal (Mehandia) P. S. Case no. 126 of 2001 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 307/34 IPC against the accused. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Session. Charges were framed against the accused to which they denied and claimed to be tried. After trial the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. Heard Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. S. Choudhary, learned A. P. P. for the State. On the perusal of the impugned order as well as the other material on record, it 3 appears that altogether 10 witnesses including the doctor and the informant have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. It has been found that the fard beyan has been lodged on 16.11.2001 after two days of the occurrence. All the witnesses except the injured are hearsay witnesses actually they have not seen the occurrence with their own eyes. Informant says that when he entered in the house of Aziz Mian, he found his brother Om Prakash Tanti injured in the tank from where he was brought out and taken to the hospital at Arwal. He has suspected that the accused might have assaulted his brother, Om Prakash Tanti. From perusal of the evidence of the witnesses it appears that the defence has taken suggestion that Om Prakash Tanti fell down in the tank while he was trying to commit theft. There is no ambiguity in it. It is the admission of P.W. 9 Ashok Kumar Tanti (informant) in paragraph 7 that the mother of the accused Guddi Mian, Jubaida Khatoon lodged a case against him and his injured brother Om Prakash Tanti on the same day and for the 4 theft. Ext. D is the Sanha of Dineshwar Tanti, uncle of the informant and injured which says that on 12.11.2001 at 8 P.M. the injured Om Prakash Tati in drunken condition fell down from the roof and blood was oozing from ear and he was in an unconscious stage. Learned trial court has opined that there is no reason to disbelieve that Om Prakash Tati fell down from roof and due to this he fell down in the tank where he received injuries. Sole eye witness injured Om Prakash Tati has stated in paragraph 4 that accused Ibrar and Naeem tied his legs and hands and assaulted him with Khanti causing injury on head and Guddu also assaulted him with lathi on his head. The other accused persons surrounded him and assaulted him but it appears from the evidence of P.W. 10 Doctor who has examined the injured that he did not find any injury on head and all injuries which he found (Ext. 2) on the left side of the body. After considering the material on record, learned trial court has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its charge against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly they have been acquitted. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)