IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.949 of 2008 Kamal Nath Jha, son of Late Deena Nath Jha, resident of village-Bangaon, P.S.-Bangaon, District- Saharsa. Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Manikant Jha, son of late Deena Nath Jha, resident of village-Bangaon, P.S.-Bangaon, District- Saharsa. ----------- 7. 25.08.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 25.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Saharsa in S.Tr. No.57/95 by which the accused opposite party no.2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.07.1994 at about 7.00 P.M., the informant was gossiping. In the meantime, the accused Manikant Jha, opposite party no.2 made irrelevant talk which was protested by the informant. The accused assaulted him with spade and he became un- conscious. The occurrence was witnessed by the persons on the place of occurrence. The Fardbeyan of the petitioner was recorded in the Govt. Hospital, Baryahi during treatment. Thereafter, Saharsa P.S. Case No.387/94 was instituted under Sections 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under 2 Sections 307, 324, 325 and 327 of the I.P.C. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused under Section 307 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the accused has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of overwhelming evidence, the accused has been acquitted. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The informant and the accused are own brothers. There has been litigation between both the parties. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been considered by the learned trial court minutely and has found that they have developed their evidence during the trial. Their evidence has not been found trustworthy. There has been no evidence of the independent witnesses. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and 3 order, it appears that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been considered by the learned trial court minutely and has come to the conclusion that most of the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and the prosecution has not been able to derive any evidence in favour of the petitioner during their cross- examination. Other witnesses are interested. After considering the evidence, the learned trial court has found that there is enmity between both the parties. Both the parties are own brothers. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has been acquitted 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 judgment and order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)