IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1000 of 2009 Mithila Bihari Mishra, son of Sone Mishra, resident of village-Janipur, P.S.-Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Brajesh Mohan Mishra @ Mintu 3. Din Dyal Mishra @ Dina (Both sons of Ram Naresh Mishra, resident of village- Janipur, P.S.-Janipur, District-Sitamarhi. ----------- 2. 04.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 28.03.2009 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Pupri at Sitamarhi in G.R.Case No.388 of 2004 (Trial No.455 of 2009) by which the accused opposite parties nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 341, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate should have relied upon the evidence of the informant, who has been examined as P.W.6. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer and the Doctor should have been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that out of 6 P.Ws., P.W.Nos. 1 to 5 have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. 2 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the petitioner was the informant of Pupri P.S. Case No.122/04, which was lodged under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the trial proceeding was initiated. It appears that no protest petition has been filed against the investigation. The defence of the accused is denial of the occurrence. Six Prosecution Witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. All the witnesses are the co-villagers of the petitioner. P.Ws. I to 5 are hostile, they have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 is the informant and he has supported the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. It appears from the cross-examination that the evidence of P.W.6 is not convincing rather the defence version appears to be correct as it has been held by the learned trial court. I do not find any material irregularity in the impugned judgment. It has got no merit and it is dismissed. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)