IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1609 of 2009 Punit Rai S/O Late Gigal Rai R/O Sabalpur, P.S.- Didarganj, Distt.- Patna. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. Pramod Rai, son of Asarafi Rai. 2. Masudhan Rai, son of Jhimi Rai 3. Madhu Rai, son of Jhimi Rai 4. Nagendra Rai, son of Late Jai Govind Rai (All are residents of village- Rustampur, P.S.- Raghopur, Distt.- Vaishali) 5. Binod Rai, son of Moti Rai, resident of village-Sameema (Naya Wasi), Puranawasi, Ram Nagar, Satbhaiya Tola, P.S.- Bakhtyarpur, District- Patna. 6. The State of Bihar ………..Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 21.11.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City in G.R.No.1752/2005, Trial No.2740/2007 by which the accused opposite party nos. 1 to 5 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 of the I.P.C. On the written information of the informant, Didarganj P.S. Case No.104/2005 was instituted for commission of theft of a boat of the informant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused opposite party nos. 1 to 5 for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 379/34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, they have been acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that P.Ws. I, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 have supported the case of prosecution, but the accused have been acquitted in spite of sufficient evidence against them. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned Magistrate has minutely considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its charges against the accused and as such, they have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. He has further submitted that none of the witnesses has seen the accused committing the offence of theft, who are the hearsay witnesses. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and has found that the material witnesses are hearsay witnesses. Their evidence has not been found to be trustworthy and the accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)