GULAB MISHRA Vs. YOGENDRA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 1.8.1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in G.R. No. 609/1994, Tr. No. 315/1997, by which he has acquitted the opposite parties for the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on the basis of the statement of the petitioner the FIR was lodged. It has been stated that on 23.2.1994 at 4.30 p.m. when the petitioner was returning from his field all the opposite parties variously armed with lathi and farsa came there and opposite party Krishna Nand Mishra wanted to cause injury to the petitioner by means of farsa on his head but as he moved ahead it caused injury on his neck. Thereafter, the opposite parties Dinanath Mishra and Yogendra Mishra assaulted him with lathi on his head. On hulla, the villagers came there and having seen the villagers opposite parties fled away. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against all the opposite parties and consequently the trial was also concluded with the result as indicated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind and have acquitted all the opposite parties. The case of the prosecution was proved but even then the Court has acquitted them. The prosecution in support of his case examined altogether five witnesses, PW 1 Gulab Mishra, PW 2 Dr. Ram Singh, PW 3 Balbhadra Mishra, PW 4 Gopal Jee Tiwary and PW 5 Bhola Prasad. The Court below has discussed in detail the evidence of the witnesses and have come to the conclusion that the deposition of the witnesses are not consistent and their evidence are not reliable. I have carefully perused the documents of the Court below as well as impugned order, I find that the facts of the case has been properly evaluated, the conclusion drawn by the Court below appears to be correct and it does not require any interference by this Court. There is nothing in the judgment which will show that there has been any miscarriage of justice for non-consideration of the evidence of the witnesses. The Court below has rightly acquitted the opposite parties on giving them benefit of doubt.

(3.) Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.