JUDGMENT : The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2006 passed by Sri Shivpal Singh, S.D.J.M, Dumka in G.R Case no. 632 of 1999 / T.R Case no. 73 of 2006 whereby the accused persons i.e opposite party nos. 2,3 and 4 have been acquitted giving benefit of doubt. According to the first information report, the petitioner (the informant) was sitting in his room and the accused persons came there and started abusing the petitioner. Thereafter, they assaulted the petitioner by lathi etc. on which the petitioner sustained a number of injuries. On his ‘Hulla’ his wife came to save him but the accused persons even assaulted her by lathi and feast upon which she also sustained injuries. Thereafter, the informant’s brother Manoj Keshri also came to the place of occurrence. But the accused persons also assaulted him and they snatched the informant’s gold ring. It is further alleged that three years before the said accused persons assaulted the informant and for this one case is still going on upon them. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet under Section 341, 323 and 325 and 379/ I.P.C. 2. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has failed to consider that there were adequate evidence on record and further the accused persons have been acquitted merely on the ground that there was no independent witness. 4. Perused the judgment of the trial court. I find the trial court has discussed the evidence of all the eight witnesses elaborately and thereafter he has given benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them. 5. After going through the impugned judgment I find the P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has not seen the occurrence Likewise, P.W.2 has also stated in his cross examination that when he reached near the place of occurrence the quarrel was over. P.W.3 in his chief has also stated that he went to the clinic of Dilip Kumar Keshri (the petitioner) but he did not enter into the room. P.W.3 in his chief has also stated that he went to the clinic of Dilip Kumar Keshri (the petitioner) but he did not enter into the room. P.W, 4 the wife of the informant has stated in her evidence that she was in her Agan when the accused persons came to her husband and assaulted him by lathi, she rushed to her husband and tried to save him but the accused Chandra Shekhar Keshri (the Opposite Party no.2) assaulted her and bit her in her right arm but all these things have not been mentioned by the informant in the F.I.R neither he has stated in his evidence. She has further stated that the O.P. no. 2 had snatched the gold ring from her hand which fact is also not mentioned in the F.I.R by her husband (the informant). It is stated in the FIR that the informant’s brother Manoj Keshri was also assaulted by the accused persons but he has not been examined by the prosecution. P.W.5 the informant has stated in his evidence that he was assaulted 15 times by the accused persons by lathi. But the said statement is not proved by the prosecution either by the injuiry report or by the evidence of the doctor or b y any x-ray plate. 6. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness to prove the prosecution case though the alleged incident took place at about 8 A.M. It has come in the evidence that the informant and the accused persons both are belonged to the same family and admittedly one case is pending between them. In my opinion, the trial court has written a careful judgment considering all the evidences elaborately and on pains taking analysis reached a conclusion and acquitted the accused persons. 7. The legal position is very well settled that if the main grounds on which the court below had based its order of acquittal are reasonable and plausible, the high court should not disturb the said order of acquittal. I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed.