R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P. for the State and Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 27.05.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in S. C. No. 249 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them under Sections 323/34, 325, 307, 341/34, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation reveals that the informant was harvesting potato in his field, when the accused persons were cutting the mound between the two fields at which the informant raised an objection and a scuffle ensued. It was alleged that the accused Ratan Mandal had given a spade blow on the head of the informant and when his brother came to save him, he was also assaulted. The other accused persons have assaulted the informant by the means of lathi.
4. In course of trial, 8 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant had sustained head injuries and in fact P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 as well as 7 have supported the occurrence with respect to the assault committed by the accused persons upon the informant and his brother.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that there was a previous land dispute going on between the parties and therefore the false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. It has also been submitted that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the case of the prosecution is primarily based upon the evidence of the interested witnesses.
7. On a perusal of the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2011, it appears that the formal FIR and the written report have not been proved. It further appears that P.W. 1 & 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution and only P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 seems to have supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, there is a land dispute existing between the parties. Even on a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 8 who is a doctor, it would seem that a doubt was created as to whether the injuries suffered by the informant was on account of a spade blow or not. The learned trial court on appropriate consideration of the evidences on record had acquitted the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the charges leveled against them.
8. We do not find any reason to differ with the findings and consequently this revision application stands dismissed.
