IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1398 of 2007 Bulendra Yadav son of Sobhi Yadav, resident of village:- Laxmipur, P S. Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rajendra Roy @ Rajan Son of Late Kamleshwari Roy, 3. Mohan Yadav son of Ganeshi Yadav 4. Shobhakant Roy @ Babaji Roy son of Chandi Roy All. Sl. No. 2 to 4 resident of village- Laskari P S. Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura. 5. Binoy Yadav son of late Ravi yadav resident of village – Laxmipur Rahatha P S. Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura. 6. Sheikh Jamal son of Md. Ladho Sheikh resident of Jogiraj, P S. Puraini, District Madhepura. 7. Ram Kakhiya Devi wife of – Ramdersharma resident of village – Pachgachhia, PS. Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura. … Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 5.07.2011 Informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T. C. No. 2, Madhepura in Sessions Case No. 146 of 1995 by which all the accused have been acquitted. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls even today. Mr. Chandrasen Pd. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that it appears from the record that earlier this revision was dismissed for default vide order dated 15.10.2008 for non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. Later on this revision 2 application was restored vide order dated 22.4.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11192 of 2009 and even thereafter the petitioner does not appear in this case on repeated calls and it appears that the petitioner has no interest in this case. This case can be disposed of without waiting for the petitioner any further . Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 50 of 1992 was instituted by the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The case was lodged against unknown and during investigation the name of accused had appeared. Prosecution case, in brief, is that informant, Bulendra Yadav, P.W. 13 was working on the brick kiln and the deceased Deodat Yadav was working there as Sipahi. Other persons were also there in the night of 3/4th April 1992. Eight persons came there and one of them asked the deceased Deodat Yadav to serve tea. All the accused were armed with country made pistol and axe. One of them shot fire which caused injuries in the right side of the deceased. The informant did not identify any of the accused as they had hidden their face. On the 3 fardbeyan of the informant, the aforesaid Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 50 of 1992 was instituted against unknown for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against accused. Charge has been framed under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that during trial altogether 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of them P.Ws. 5, 7, 10, and 12 have stated that the occurrence have taken place at the brick kiln of Jagroop Mehata . The deceased was working as a Sipahi on the brick kiln. P W. 7 and 10 were also working there and were present at the brick kiln but they have not identified the accused. P.W. 5 and 12 are hearsay witness. It is further submitted that after careful consideration of the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the prosecutor has failed to substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubts even the informant P W. 13 has not stated as to who had committed the offence. All the culprits had hidden their face. During trial it has come to light in the evidence of P.W. 8, Gyani Devi, wife of the deceased 4 that after information she went to the brick kiln and saw that her husband (deceased) had injury by sharp cutting weapons and firearm. In cross-examination she has stated that the deceased had gone to jail and remained there for three years. After hearing learned counsel for the State and also on perusal of the impugned order it appears that learned trial Court has considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses carefully and also came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and all the accused have been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)