IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1116 of 2009 Manju Devi wife of Sri Durga Prasad Sah, resident of village Basopatti, P.S. Basopatti, district Madhubani. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar ………Opp. 1st party 2. Naresh Sah son of Bharat Sah 3. Parmila Devi wife of Naresh Sah 4. Nitesh Sah son of Naresh Sah 5. Sitesh Sah son of Naresh Sah 6. Shashibhushan Sah son of Bharat Sah All resident of village Basopatti Bazar, P.S. Basopatti. District Madhubani. ………..Opp. 2nd Parties ----------- 2. 18.07.2011 The informant has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 609 of 2006 arising out of Basopatti P.S. Case No. 21 of 2005 G.R. No. 620 of 2005 by which the accused persons have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubts. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Rajendra Kumar for the State of Bihar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 341, 441, 504, 354 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was instituted on the basis of the fardbayan of the informant petitioner Manju Devi, P.W. -6 that on 08.04.2005 at about 12:00 O’clock her cow gazed the crop of the accused Naresh Sah. Naresh Sah started abusing her which was protested by her. When she went to the handpump in her kitchen-garden (Bari) for taking water Naresh Sah thrashed her on the ground, she made an alarm. Bharat Sah the father of the Naresh Sah 2 also called the members of his family. All the accused came in the kitchen-garden of the informant and they assaulted her brutally Shashibhushan Sah assaulted with Farsa causing injury on her head. Ritesh Sah assaulted with 1kg watt on her head. All the accused assaulted her, she fell down, thereafter, Naresh Sah snatched the golden chain from her neck and left her supposing to be dead, she was taken to the Primary Health Centre and could not give her statement. After regaining her sense she gave her statement in the Primary Health Centre on 12.04.2005 at 10:45 hours. On her ferdbayan Basopatti P.S. Case No. 21 of 2005 was instituted against all the accused opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. In the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against the accused. The learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses out of them P.W. 1, 2 & 3 are hostile. P.W. 4 Moni Kumari and P.W. 5 Soni Kumari, the daughter of the informant have supported the prosecution case as mentioned in the Fardbayan and also supported by P.W. 6. the informant P.W. 7. Dr. Prem Chand Prabhat has stated that he examined the informant on 08.04.2005 at about 12:45 P.M. and found the injuries on her person. The nature of the injury is simple caused by sharp cutting weapon. P.W. 8 is the I.O. who has investigated the case and has recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses. Their evidence have been found full of contradictions as such the learned Magistrate does not rely upon their evidence. According to the fardbayan and P.W. 6 the informant, the occurrence took place at the Bari. P.W. 5 claims to be the witness of 3 the entire occurrence. She has stated that the occurrence took place at the Dalan. P.W. 3 Uma Shankar Sah is the son of the informant who was present at the place of occurrence and he was also present in the hospital but he has not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4 & 5 are the daughters of the informant P.W.6. they have supported the case but there is no independent witness examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the prosecution case, P.W. 7 the Doctor has stated that he has examined the informant on 08.04.2005 and at the time of her medical examination she has told her name. It clearly shows that even at that time the informant was able to state but on that date the fardbayan has not been recorded and the reasons for not recording the fardbayan of the informant as disclosed in the fardbayan does not appear convincing. The prosecution evidence has not been found convincing to the learned trial Court. It appears that the learned trial Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has come to the conclusion that their evidence is not convincing and the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubts. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This revision application is dismissed. Saif (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)