IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1179 of 2009 Binta Nandan Jha son of late Ramakant Jha, resident of village Prasad, P.O. Banki, P.S. Madhepur, Subdivision Jhanjharpur, district- Madhubani. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar … Opp. Party 1st 2. Ram Chandra Nonia @ Dilchan Nonia son of Nanda Nonia 3. Jhingur Nonia son of Nanda Nonia 4. Uttichandra Nonia son of Bakali Nonia 5. Upendra Nonia son of Khabi Nonia 6. Baidyanath Nonia son of Mahabir Nonia All resident of village Parsad, P.S. Madhepur, District- Madhubani. …. Opp. 2nd Party. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 2. 24.08.2011 The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 19th June 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1994/216 of 2002 arising out of Madhepur P. S. Case No. 81 of 1993, G. R. No. 336 of 1993 by which the accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report, in brief, is that on 9.4.1993 at about 9 a.m. the informant with his elder brother, Bhagwan Jha @ Krishna Nand Jha was repairing his cattle shed in his purchased land. In the meantime, the accused came there 2 armed with various weapons. The accused told the informant that the said land belongs to him and he would not allow the informant to repair the house standing thereon. After altercation the informant and his brother were assaulted with intention to kill. On hearing hulla, Bhallu Jha, brother of the informant and others came there for his rescue. The accused also assaulted him. On this written report Madhepur P. S. Case No. 81 of 1993 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of session. All the accused have been charged for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 307/149 I.P.C. After trial, all the accused have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears that altogether six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution out of them P.W. 6, Mohan Jha has been declared hostile. Other witnesses have been examined on the point of fact in order to prove the prosecution case. It appears that learned trial court has examined and considered 3 the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully and has found that their evidence is contradictory and does not inspire confidence. It has been held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and they have been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any glaring defect in the procedure. There is no manifest error on a point of law and the trial court has not committed any error. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)