Criminal Revision No.659 of 2002 Against the Judgment and order dated 6.6.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court-II, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2001 / 58 of 1988. Mahfooj Alam son of Raishuddin, resident of Village- Hajipur, P.S. Katihar, Muffasil, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1.State Of Bihar. 2.Azahar Ali son of Mazar Ali. 3.Alauddin son of Rustam Ali. 4.Yar Mohammad son of Marjab. 5.Israful Haque son of Abul Rashid. 6.Noor Mohammad son of Margav Hussain. 7.Abdul Sattar son of Imauddin. 8.Ismail son of Rashid. 9.Marjan Ali son of Sabed Ali. 10.Samir Ali Son of Ismaile. 11.Taimur Ali son of Sadhak Ali. 12.Mohiuddin son of Hurashetu. 13.Alauddin son of Arsad Ali. 14.Badar Ali son of Abdul Mansab. 15.Afsar Ali son of Usman Ali. 16.Jalal son of Avashar Ali. 17.Khushhal son of Avashar Ali. 18.Hajarat son of Dawad. 19.Mantu son of Abosur Rahman. 20.Mansoor Alam son of Saishuddin. 21.Amir Ali son of Arsahad. 22.Kalu son of Mumtaz All residents of Village-Hazipur, Police Station- Katihar Muffasil, Distt.Katihar. ……. Opposite parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Pravin Chandra Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL Amaresh Kumar Lal,J. The petitioner, the informant, Mahfooj Alam, P.W.8 has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.659 of 2002 dt.24-11-2011 2 preferred this revision application against the Judgment and order dated 6th June,2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2nd, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2001/ 58 of 1988 by which 21 accused opposite parties have been acquitted. 2. The fard beyan of the petitioner was recorded by police on 23.9.1986. According to the prosecution case under the leadership of the accused Sattar Master 176 acores of land was taken on lease. Major portion of the lease land was occupied by Sattar Master. He did not want to give the leased land to other lessees and as a result of which there were two groups in his village one led by said Sattar Master and another led by Ekram Master. On 23.9.1986 accused Azahar Ali being armed with a dagger came to the house of Samsher Ali to assault him. Abdul Rasid, Mehboob Hussain and Ekram Master caught hold of him. Thereafter all the accused persons and others in number of 200-300 being armed with bhala and farsa etc. came to the house of Abdul Rasid, broke the door planks of his house, entered into his house and took paddy, cash etc. from his house. They also pelted stones on his house. They also entered into the house of Mehboob Hussain demolished his Chulha and took cot, sujni etc. from his house.Thereafter they entered into the house of Ekram Master and assaulted him with bhalas, barchhas and lathies and pelted stones on his house due to which Bibi Khatija and others sustained injuries. They took one old Hero Cycle from his house. While fleeing away they set fire to the heap of straw belonging to Ekram Master. Subsequently, he learnt that Arshad Ali was also assaulted with Bullam. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.659 of 2002 dt.24-11-2011 3 3. On the basis of his fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. being Katihar Muffasil P.S. Case No.19 of 1988 was registered against 25 accused persons. After investigation the chargesheet was submitted against 24 persons and one Sis Mohammad died. 4. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the court of Session. 5. After the trial it has been held that the prosecution has failed to prove the Charge under sections 147, 148,149, 307, 323, 324, 380, 435, 436 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused have been acquitted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued his case that inspite of sufficient evidence against the accused they have been acquitted. 7. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial court has considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully and minutely and has found that the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the occurrence. The evidence of the prosecution witness is contradictory and not fit to be relied upon. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the both the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. The learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and as such they have been acquitted from the charges. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.659 of 2002 dt.24-11-2011 4 case, as discussed above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition stands dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. The 24th October,2011 AnilKrSinha/N.A.F.R. (Amaresh Kumar Lal)