IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1143 of 2009 Kapildeo Singh son of Sheo Gopal Singh, resident of village- Jamsar Bazar, P.S.- Uchkagaon, Dist. Gopalganj. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Ramashray Singh son of Ramnath Singh 3. Ramashish Singh son of Ramdas Singh. 4. Ram Pravesh Sharma son of Bhikhari Sharma. 5. Asharfi Choudhary son of Nankeshwar Choudhary 6. Fulena Singh @ Fulo Singh son of Gopal Singh. 7. Ram Barai Singh son of Gopal Singh. 8. Jawahar Singh son of Gopal Singh 9. Ramayan Thakur son of Dwarika Thakur. 10. Sri Kishun Manjhi son of Lagan Manjhi. All r/o village- Jamsar, P.S.- Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj. … Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 17.08.2011 The petitioner, son of the informant, Sheo Gopal Singh has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 15th April 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1985/636 of 2006, arising out of Uchakagaon P. S. Case No. 27(3) of 1984, G. R. Case No. 315/1984 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 10 have been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.3.1984 on the festival of Holi, Hari Lal Singh, deceased, the son of the informant 2 and co-villager Vidya Singh went to Dih-baba to clean and wash the place which was protested by the accused Ramashish Singh. The deceased, Hari Lal Singh and Vidya Singh did not stop washing and cleaning Dih-baba, accused Ramashish Singh interfered thereafter the persons sitting in the hut came out and demolished the Varanda and Berhi of the prosecution party. There was occurrence of assault between the prosecution party and the accused. Ramashish Singh ran towards his house and brought his gun and started firing in the sky. Ramji Chaudhary threw bomb on the hut of the informant but the bomb did not explode. It is further alleged that in the crowd someone took out the bomb from Palani and put the same at the other place. Ramashish Singh shot fire at Vidya Singh causing injury. He was taken to hospital. In the meantime Hari Lal Singh fled away from the place of occurrence to his Bathan. Ramashish Singh shot fire at Hari Lal Singh causing injury on his stomach and chest and he fell down. The persons who were standing on the place of occurrence seen the occurrence and they have brought Hari Lal Singh on a rickshaw to Hathua hospital for treatment. The accused 3 persons committed theft of utensil, cloth amounting to Rs.3000/- and a cash of Rs.4000/- which was kept in Berhi of the informant and also committed theft of two bicycles. The genesis of the occurrence is said to have been land dispute between both the parties. On the written report of the informant, Uchakagaon P. S. case no. 27 (3) of 1984 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 426, 379 and 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The case of Nand Ji Singh was split up on 8.5.1997. Accused Suraj Manjhi died and his name was expunged. Accused Ramanad Singh, Budhan Singh, Ramnath Singh, Rajbanshi Chaudhary died during trial and their names have been expunged. Charges were framed against the accused. Ramashish Singh stands charged for the offence under Section 302 and 307 I.P. C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the remaining accused stand charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. Accused Asharfi Chaudhary, Fuli Singh @ Fulena Singh, Ram Pravesh Sharma 4 and Ramabarai Singh were further charged for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. Accused Kishun Manjhi, Ramayan Thakur, Jawahir Singh and Ramashray Singh were further charged for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. After trial the accused have been acquitted as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has not applied his judicial mind. P.W. 1, P. W. 4, P.W.7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10, P. W.11 and P. W. 12 have supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2, Sheo Gopal Singh (informant), P. W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are in collusion with the accused and they have become hostile. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses out of them P. W. 10, Mahabir Thakur and P. W. 12, Manager Prasad are formal witnesses who have proved the post mortem report (Ext. 3) and inquest report (Ext. 4) respectively. P. W. 2 is the informant of this case and P. W. 3, Vidya Singh is the injured. They have also not supported the prosecution case. P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 are the named independent witness of the charge-sheet 5 but they have not supported the prosecution case. The evidences of other witnesses are full of contradictions and they are not reliable witness as such their evidence has rightly been not relied upon by the learned trial court. All the accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and this Court has no occasion to interfere with the impugned order. 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 in this case Hari Lal Singh, the son of the informant has been caused to death and Vidya Singh, P.W. 3 is the person who has been injured in this occurrence. P. W. 2, Sheo Gopal Singh is the informant and the father of the deceased. P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 are the suffers of this occurrence. They have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. They have been cross- examined at length but nothing has been elicited to show any sort of involvement of the accused in the alleged occurrence. P.W. 5 and P. W. 6 are the eye witness to the occurrence but they have also not supported the prosecution case and they have also been 6 declared hostile. P.W. 10 Mahavir Thakur and P. W. 12 are formal witness who have proved the post-mortem report (Ext. 3) and Inquest report (Ext. 4). P.W. 1 Radheshyam Singh is the son of the informant. According to him, about 100-150 persons were cleaning and washing Dih-baba at the time of occurrence while the accused Ramashish Singh came there and protested. There was altercation between Ramashish Singh and the villagers. According to him, Ramashish Singh went to the roof of his house and shot fire causing head injury on Vidya Singh and thereafter shot fire at Hari Lal Singh (deceased) causing injury on his head and chest. He has admitted the land dispute between both the parties and according to him no occurrence did take place at Bathan. He has further stated that he had not gone to Chbutra of Dih-baba either at the time of occurrence or later on. According to him, there was a hole in the chest of shirt of the deceased but P.W. 9 Laxmi Narayan Manjhi, I. O. of the case has said that there was no hole in the shirt of the deceased. From the evidence learned trial court has considered that P.W. 1 was not present at the time of occurrence. According to P.W. 2, at 7 the time of occurrence P.W. 1 was in Gujarat. P. W. 4, Sheo Ji Singh has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence, Dih-baba for offering Abir but for altercation between Ramashish Singh and the informant, Ramashish Singh did not allow the informant to clean Dih-baba. The statement of this witness has been found contrary to the statement given in the written report. P. W. 7, Suchanti Devi @ Kchawati Devi is the wife of P. W. 11, Kapildeo Singh and daughter-in-law of the informant. She has stated that the occurrence took place due to cleaning the place of Dih-baba. According to her accused came out from the house and started firing but as per FIR the accused Ramashish Singh was firing from the roof of his house. Her evidence has also been found full of contradictions. P. W. 2, Sheo Gopal Singh, father-in-law of P.W. 7, has stated that at the time of occurrence Kapildeo Singh, husband of P.W. 7 was living in Nepal along with members of his family and this fact has been admitted by P.W. 11, Kapildeo Singh, husband of P.W. 7. P.W. 11 Kapildeo Singh is also not reliable witness. He has named only two accused persons Ramashish Singh and Ramjee Chaudhary who have 8 committed offence. After investigation police has not sent up Ramjee Chaudhary for trial. P.W. 2 has also stated that at the time of occurrence P.W. 11 was living in Nepal with his family. P.W. 11 has also admitted that he was working in Dalda factory in Nepal prior to the occurrence. The evidence of this witness has also been found to be doubtful and he has not supported the prosecution version. The doctor has not been examined. P. W. 8, Sukhram Singh is also the son of the informant. He has only said that Ramashish Singh shot fire at his brother Hari Lal Singh who succumbed to his injuries. He has also not stated as to who had fired at Vidya Singh (P.W. 3) an injured in the occurrence. P. W. 9, Laxmi Narayan Manjhi, the Investigating Officer has not given clear picture of the place of occurrence. He has stated that one gun loaded with two cartridges were recovered from the house of the accused persons and the licence of the gun was also produced and the seizure list was prepared but neither the seizure list nor the seized gun or licence or examination report of gun, in question, have been brought on record by the prosecution in support of bona fide contention 9 of the prosecution version. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I find that the learned trial court has considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses minutely and has found that their evidence are not so vital which goes to root of the case and their evidence are not reliable and trustworthy. Considering all these facts, learned trial court has acquitted all the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)