IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.677 of 2002 [Against the judgment and order dated 24th May 2002 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1999/129 of 1994] Sharda Devi w/o Mahesh Mahto, resident of village- Koeribigha, Police Station Gurua, District- Gaya. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Durga Mahto son of Bharath Mahto, resident of village- Koeribigha, Police Station Gurua, District Gaya. ..Opposite Parties. ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Alok Kumar I, Adv. For the State :Dr. Rabindra Kumar, APP For O.P. No.2 :Mr. Dudheshwar Singh, Adv. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The informant –petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 24th May 2002 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1999/129 of 1994 by which the accused opposite party no. 2 Durga Mahto has been acquitted from the charge under Section 307/326 and 341 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.677 of 2002 dt.21-11-2011 2 is that on 19.1.1993 her nephew Durga Mahto (opposite party no. 2) was demolishing her wall by Khanti at 8 a.m.. Her son Mithilesh informed the petitioner and went to collect the villagers to show the highhandedness of the accused Siya Ram Mahto, Indra Deo Mahto, Ramesh Prasad came to the place of occurrence. Her son informed Dinesh Prasad but he did not come to the place of occurrence. In the meantime, accused Durga Mahto came armed with Garasa and on instigation of Siyaram Mahto he assaulted the informant’s son Mithilesh Kumar with Garasa on his head and neck. Several villagers came there and they caught hold of Durga Mahto while he was fleeing away. 3. On the basis of the fard beyan of the informant Gurua P. S. Case No. 5 of 1993 was instituted against both the accused Durga Mahto and Siyaram Mahto. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 324 and 307 I.P.C. against Durga Mahto only. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against him. The case was committed to the court of session where charges were framed under Section 307/326/341 against the sole accused. After trial the accused opposite Patna High Court CR. REV. No.677 of 2002 dt.21-11-2011 3 party no. 2 has been acquitted. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses to support its case out of them P.W. 1 Dinesh Singh, P.W. 3 Ramesh Mahto, P.W. 4 Sharada Devi (informant) and P. W. 5 Mithilesh (the injured) have supported the prosecution case. Even thereafter the learned trial court has acquitted the accused. It appears from para 10 of the impugned judgment that the learned trial court has also found that the informant and her son are the eye witness to the occurrence who have stated that Durga Mahto assaulted Mithilesh by Garasa. He has also found that injury report is in the case –diary but it has not been exhibited. Since the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, learned trial court could not have acquitted the accused and should have held guilt against the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the accused opposite party no. 2 has submitted that he has filed the show-cause at Flag ‘A’. He has submitted that the injury report has not been exhibited by the prosecution and as such the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.677 of 2002 dt.21-11-2011 4 learned trial court has rightly held that in such circumstances it will be highly unjustified to believe the version of the informant and her son, particularly when she has admitted that there was a dispute with regard to land between both the parties since a long. 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that there is material on record to show that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case as such the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial court for rehearing and passing the order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 21st of November 2011 N.A.F.R/Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)