IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1338 of 2007 MD.AMANULLAH, SON OF LATE MAD HABIBULLAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR TOLA BAGAHI, P.S. DIGHWARA, DISTRICT SARAN. …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD ISMAIL SON OF MD NAZIB 3. JUNAID ALAM, SON OF MAD NAZIB 4. ANWARUL HAQUE SON OF MD NAZIB 5. MD. QASIM SON OF JAMIRUDDIN 6. ABDUL QADIR SON OF JAMIRUDDIN 7. MD JAINUDDIN SON OF FAIZ MIAN 8. KURSHID ALAM, SON OF ISMAIL, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGAHI P.S. DIGHWARA SARAN. …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner : Mr.Arjun Prasad No.2 For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 09.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the informant (P.W.1) of the case which gave rise to Tr.No.1784/2007 of the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. By order dated 03.08.2007, the trial court has acquitted all the accused persons (o.p.nos. 2 to 8 herein) of the charge(s) punishable under sections 144,448 and 342 IPC. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons variously armed with different weapons intruded into the house of the informant, forcibly confined him in his room and threatened him not to raise alarm. Thereafter the accused persons started illegal construction of the wall near the door of the informant. Seven witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet. The prosecution, however, examined four witnesses. While evaluating the evidence of the informant, the learned trial court 2 has found that he has not supported the manner of occurrence. His version has also been doubted as no document relating to the title over the land on which alleged construction was being made has been produced. Learned trial court also found that P.W.3 contradicted in substantial way the statement/deposition of the informant. On an evaluation of the documents placed on record by the defence (as discussed in paragraph 12), it has been found and held that genesis of the occurrence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court referring to the deposition of the I.O., has concluded that in fact no construction of boundary wall near the gate of the informant was found. In the backdrop of these facts emanating from records, the judgment and order of acquittal was recorded. This Court does not find any patent illegality in consideration of the matter by learned trial court meriting interference. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )