Judgment ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. This revision application has been directed against the judgment and order dated 9.2.1999 passed by Sri Kailash Kumar Mahto, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sheikhpura at, Munger whereby and whereunder he convicted the accused Naresh Mahto and Ravindra Mahto under Sections 447 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and a period of three months under Section 447 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused Kailash Mahto (O.P. No. 2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.P. No. 2 was acquitted on the grounds that he was aged 60 years and it was not expected that he was holding dangerous weapon like farsa when his two own sons and participated in the alleged occurrence. The learned Magistrate also recorded that the informants wife was not examined as such he disbelieved the allegation against O.P. No. 2 that he had assaulted with farsa. 3. It was therefore, submitted that the ground on which O.P. No. 2 had been acquitted is perfunctory and the learned Magistrate ought to have convicted O.P. No. 2 against whom the witnesses had made positive statement to the effect that he had assaulted the informant with Jarsa on his head and the doctor found the injury on his head. 4. This is settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court except in any exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare case. 5. I have perused the judgment and the material available on record including the certified copy of first information report which has been produced by the counsel appearing for the petitioner today. 6. On perusal of the first information report it is manifest that there is absolutely no allegation that O.P. No. 2 was armed with farsa or that he gave Jarsa blow on the head of the informant causing injury to him. There is clear cut allegation against the other I two accused that they were armed with lathi and assaulted the informant and his son with lathi 7. The attention of I.O. was also drawn with respect to the statement made by PW 2 Birendra Pd. There is clear cut allegation against the other I two accused that they were armed with lathi and assaulted the informant and his son with lathi 7. The attention of I.O. was also drawn with respect to the statement made by PW 2 Birendra Pd. Sharma and the I.O. stated, that he did not make any statement before him that the opposite-party No. 2 had assaulted the informant with Jarsa. It appears that in course of trial the witnesses have developed the story and were examined td say that the O.P. No. 2 was armed with Jarsa and he gave Jarsa blow on the head of the informant. On the basis of such developed story the Court cannot convict a person, rather, the trial Court was justified in acquitting O.P. No. 2 in view of the inconsistency and contradictions as has been referred to above. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned trial Court have not committed any illegality in acquitting opposite party No. 2. 8. In the result, I find no merit in this revision application which is dismissed.