IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1348 of 2009 Md. Irshad Khan, son of Md. Mazhar Khan, resident of village: Husainabad Naya Tola, P.S. Katihar, District Katihar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Taslim son of Chichai Mian 3. Md. Zamil son of Chichai Mian 4. Kuresha Khatoon wife of Md. Taslim 5. Md. Hussain son of Md. Taslim 6. Tetari Khatoon, Daughter of Chichai Mian. .. Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 26.09.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Katihar in G. R. Case No. 923 of 1999, Trial No. 334 of 2009 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341,323 and 504/34 I.P.C. by giving them the benefit of doubt and also discharged them from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of material on record, it appears that on the basis of written information of the petitioner, Katihar P. S. Case No. 228 of 1999 2 dated 17.5.2009 was instituted against accused- opposite party for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 I.P.C.. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken against the accused. After trial accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted by the impugned order. It also appears that prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. Accused-opposite party have not examined any witnesses but have filed three documents which have been marked as Exts. A, B and C, out of which Ext. B is the certified copy of the judgment delivered by the SDJM, Katihar in G. R. No. 924 of 1999. It further appears that learned trial court has found and held that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are interested and their statements are contradictory and as such they are not fit to be relied upon. It has also been held that prosecution party were aggressor against the accused for which there was a case bearing G. R. No. 924 of 1999 against the prosecution party and they have been held aggressor against 3 opposite party. After considering the material on record, learned trial court has held that accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 6 are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and they have been acquitted for the charges against them by giving them the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)